Background
Paediatrician recommendations are known to influence parental vaccine decisions.
Aim
Our aim was to examine vaccination knowledge, attitudes and practices among paediatricians in Italy and identify factors associated with their confidence in addressing parental questions.
Methods
An electronic questionnaire survey was conducted from February to March 2016, among a sample of Italian paediatricians.
Results
The survey was completed by 903 paediatricians (mean age: 56 years). Of 885 who responded to the specific question, 843 (95.3%) were completely favourable to vaccinations. Sixty-six per cent (570/862) felt sufficiently knowledgeable about vaccinations and vaccine-preventable diseases to confidently discuss them with parents. Paediatricians who were male, who were 55 years or older, who had participated in training courses in the last 5 years, who reported that taking courses and reading the scientific literature had contributed to their knowledge, or who had implemented vaccination promotion activities, felt more knowledgeable than other paediatricians. When asked to rate their level of agreement with statements about vaccine safety and effectiveness, only 8.9% (80/903) responded fully as expected. One third (294/878) did not systematically verify that their patients are up to date with the immunisation schedule. Only 5.4% (48/892) correctly identified all true and false contraindications.
Conclusions
The majority of paediatricians in Italy are favourable to vaccination but gaps were identified between their overall positive attitudes and their knowledge, beliefs and practices. Targeted interventions are needed aimed at increasing paediatricians’ confidence in addressing parents’ concerns, strengthening trust towards health authorities and improving systems barriers.
BackgroundSurveillance for adverse events following immunization is an important component of any national immunization programme because it is critical to assessing the safety of vaccines and to detecting potentially rare and severe adverse events and responding in a timely manner. We conducted an enhanced active surveillance aimed at assessing the safety of flu vaccines in the 2015–2016 season in Italy. The study was targeted to the population groups for which the seasonal vaccine is recommended in Italy.MethodsDuring the study period, a total of 3213 individuals receiving seasonal influenza vaccination were registered on the web-based platform. Any adverse events experienced after 7 days from vaccination by individuals aged six months or more were collected through a telephone interview or by a web-based self-administered questionnaire. All individuals experiencing at least one event during the 7 days of follow-up were contacted for follow-up to 60 days.ResultsOverall, 854 events were reported: 845 events (26%) after administration of the first dose and 9 (12%) after the second dose. The majority of adverse events reported after 7 days from the first dose were of little clinical importance, and most involved local symptoms.ConclusionOur data, even though the number of vaccinated individuals was smaller than expected, is consistent with the safety of influenza vaccines in Italy during the 2015–2016 season regarding the most common adverse events. Further efforts are needed to obtain sufficient power to study rarer adverse events. Active monitoring and systematic studies to test generated signals and hypotheses are crucial to intensify awareness among the public and professionals with regard to the safety of vaccines.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6260-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.