Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Health Care Professionals

Wilde, James A.; McMillan, Julia A.; Serwint, Janet R.; Butta, Jeanne; O’Riordan, Mary Ann; Steinhoff, Mark C.

doi:10.1001/jama.281.10.908

Cited by 555 publications

(326 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

286

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since there were no data for pregnant women, it was assumed that healthy pregnant women had the same risk of clinical influenza as other healthy adults. Five studies [31][32][33][34][35] were identified as being relevant as they were published after 1990, actively followed a cohort of healthy adults for clinical respiratory symptoms and incorporated laboratory confirmation of influenza infection (see Table 1). All five were based in the United States.…”

Section: Deaths the Hes Database Recorded 28 Deaths Between 2001 Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women against seasonal influenza in England and Wales

Jit¹,

Cromer²,

Baguelin³

et al. 2010

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women against seasonal influenza in England and Wales, taking into account the timing of vaccination relative to both the influenza season and trimester of pregnancy. Women were assumed to be vaccinated in their second or third trimester. Vaccination between September and December was found to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23,000 per QALY (95% CI £10,000 -£140,000) if it is assumed that infants are partially protected through their mothers, and of £29,000 per QALY gained (95% CI £14,000 -£200,000) if infants are not protected. If some vaccine protection lasts for a second season, then the ratio is only £15,000 per QALY gained (95% CI £6,000 -£91,000). Most of the benefit of vaccination is in preventing symptomatic episodes, regardless of health care resource use. Extending vaccination beyond December is unlikely to be cost-effective unless there is good protection into a second influenza season. Key sources of uncertainty are the cost of vaccine delivery and the quality of life detriment due to a clinically apparent episode of confirmed influenza. The cost of vaccine purchase itself is relatively low.3

show abstract

Section: Deaths the Hes Database Recorded 28 Deaths Between 2001 Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women against seasonal influenza in England and Wales

Jit¹,

Cromer²,

Baguelin³

et al. 2010

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As healthcare workers are recognised to be both introducers and reservoirs of influenza virus in the hospital setting, their vaccination is an important strategy to reduce the frequency and mortality of nosocomial outbreaks [2][3][4]. Although vaccination of healthcare workers also reduces rates of influenza-related illness and absenteeism among recipients [5,6], seasonal vaccine uptake among healthcare workers in the UK [3,7,8] and elsewhere [7,[9][10][11][12][13] is often low. Barriers to increasing coverage of seasonal influenza vaccination include inconvenience to obtain vaccine, belief that influenza is a mild illness, and concerns over vaccine efficacy or adverse reactions [1,8,9,[12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Willingness of healthcare workers to accept voluntary stockpiled H5N1 vaccine in advance of pandemic activity

Pareek

Clark

Dillon

et al. 2009

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frontline healthcare workers will be at increased risk of infection during the next influenza pandemic. Proactive priming with pre-pandemic vaccine may protect staff and reduce nosocomial transmission. Despite campaigns to increase seasonal influenza vaccine coverage, uptake rates among healthcare workers are generally low, so it is uncertain whether they would participate in voluntary pre-pandemic vaccine programmes. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of healthcare workers in a large UK teaching hospital during, and six months after, a period of intense media reporting of an H5N1 outbreak at a commercial UK poultry farm. A total of 520 questionnaires were returned, representing 20% of the frontline workforce. More respondents were willing to accept pre-pandemic vaccine during the period of heightened media attention than after (166/262, 63.4% versus 134/258, 51.9%; p=0.009). Following multivariate analysis, factors associated with willingness to accept pre-pandemic vaccine were: receipt of previous seasonal influenza vaccine (odds ratio 5.1, p<0.0001), belief that seasonal vaccine benefits themselves (OR 1.9, p=0.003), pandemic risk is high (OR 35.6, p=0.001) and that healthcare workers are threatened by a pandemic (OR 2.6, p<0.0001). Those who would not accept prepandemic vaccine (220 of 520 respondents, 42.7%) do not perceive pandemic influenza as a serious threat, and have concerns regarding vaccine safety. A majority of healthcare workers are amenable to accepting pre-pandemic vaccination if offered.Improving coverage of seasonal vaccine would increase pre-pandemic vaccine uptake if a proactive priming strategy was implemented.

show abstract

“…Moreover, HCWs often continue to care for their patients even after they develop flu‐like symptoms 3 , 4 . Nosocomial influenza is also associated with excess absenteeism and disruption of healthcare services 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudes amongst Australian hospital healthcare workers towards seasonal influenza and vaccination

Seale

Leask

MacIntyre

2009

Influenza Resp Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Amongst healthcare workers (HCWs), compliance rates with influenza vaccination are traditionally low. Although a safe and effective vaccine is available, there is little Australian data on reasons for poor compliance, especially amongst allied health and ancillary support staff. Methods Cross‐sectional investigation of a sample of clinical and non‐clinical HCWs from two tertiary‐referral teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia was conducted between June 4 and October 19, 2007. The self‐administered questionnaire was distributed to hospital personal from 40 different wards and departments. The main outcome measures were personal beliefs about influenza vaccination and self‐reported vaccination status. Results Respondents (n = 1079) were categorized into four main groups by occupation: nurses (47·5%, 512/1079), physicians (26·0%, 281/1079), allied health (15·3%, 165/1079) and ancillary (11·2%, 121/1079). When asked whether they felt the influenza vaccine was safe or effective, 81% (879/1079) and 68% (733/1079), respectively, replied in the affirmative. Participants felt that it was more important to get vaccinated to protect patients (74%, 796/1079) than family (68%, 730/1079) or self‐protection (66%, 712/1079). However, only 22% (241/1079) of the HCWs who replied reported receiving the vaccine the year the survey was conducted. Conclusions Although HCWs had an adequate level of knowledge towards influenza vaccination, only 22% of them were vaccinated. The approach to improving influenza vaccination rates amongst HCWs and to tackling misconceptions must be multifaceted, adaptable and must evolve regularly to increase coverage.

show abstract

Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Health Care Professionals

Cited by 555 publications

References 35 publications

The cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women against seasonal influenza in England and Wales

The cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women against seasonal influenza in England and Wales

Willingness of healthcare workers to accept voluntary stockpiled H5N1 vaccine in advance of pandemic activity

Attitudes amongst Australian hospital healthcare workers towards seasonal influenza and vaccination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About