Who benefits most from influenza vaccination policy: a study among the elderly in Beijing, China

Abstract

BackgroundInfluenza continues to have a major impact on vulnerable populations worldwide, particularly among the elderly (≥60 years of age). Vaccination for targeted groups is recommended by the WHO as the most effective way to control influenza infections. Since 2009, the Beijing municipal government has provided influenza vaccination to the elderly at no out-of-pocket cost to reduce influenza threats and improve related health equality. The study aims to evaluate the equality of the policy, and to analyze factors that bring influences to equality.MethodsBased on data from a household survey, concentration index (CI) was calculated to measure the socioeconomic inequality in influenza vaccination. A Logit regression model was used to decompose CI, in which the contribution of each determinant was calculated and the percentages of these contribution were obtained.ResultsFree influenza vaccination at point of use shows significant pro-poor distribution among the elderly in Beijing (CI = −0.115). After the decomposition of CI, the elderly with lower income, higher education, and living in rural areas were more likely to get the influenza vaccination, in which place of residence (contribution percentage = 57 %) held the most contribution of variance.ConclusionsBeijing’s free influenza vaccination strategy at point of use could provide the poor elderly with equal opportunities to receive preventive health service, showing a significant pro-poor distribution. The poor elderly, who live in rural areas with high education, benefit most from the policy. Further policy interventions should target the population living in urban areas in order to improve the utilization of public health services and health equality.

Evaluation of the impact of immunization policies, including the addition of pharmacists as immunizers, on influenza vaccination coverage in Nova Scotia, Canada: 2006 to 2016

“…A variety of influenza immunization strategies have been utilized, with many jurisdictions focusing on vaccinating high-risk populations, such as older individuals, children and those with chronic disease, and others providing universal coverage [ 5 – 8 ]. Although NACI in Canada recommends the vaccine for all Canadians six months of age and older [ 3 ], public funding for the influenza vaccine varies by province/territory, as each is responsible for providing healthcare to their residents [ 9 , 10 ].…”

Vaccine Equity in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…The most recent data was from 2019 [3, 11]. Most studies examined vaccination in children under 5 years old, only 2 included vaccination coverage in adults [36, 37] and three omitted a clear description of age, see figure A.1 for all age ranges and details. A summary table of all included definitions of fully vaccinated can be found in the supplementary material, table A.3.…”

“…Where multiple studies are conducted in a country, their bars overlap so darker regions indicate age groups covered by more than one study. Two studies are highlighted as they examined adults [36, 37] all other studies examined children. Three studies did not include clear age ranges and are omitted from the figure [30, 121, 41].…”

Knowledge and Attitudes about the Flu Vaccine among Pregnant Women in the Valencian Community (Spain)

“…With regards to the setting, the fact that the vaccine is free [26], is administered at the doctor’s office itself [7,27], the use of reminders such as text messages [28], and the degree of effectiveness achieved in a season (that the vaccine strains forecasted in this campaign are the same as the ones that are circulating), are factors that are favorable for vaccination [21,29]. The need for an annual vaccination [20,30], and the decrease in the immunizations in the last months of the campaign, as observed in this work, are factors that have a negative effect.…”