• WongMartin C SMCSFrom the School of Public Health and Primary Care (MCSW, SYSW); Department of Paediatrics (EASN, FWTC, TFL); Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (CL); Department of Medicine and Therapeutics (NL, KWC); Department of Microbiology (, NelsonE Anthony SEAS, Czarina Leung, Nelson Lee, ChanMartin C WMCW, Kin Wing Choi, Timothy H Rainer, ChengFrankie W TFWT, WongSamuel Y SSYS, Christopher K C Lai, Bosco Lam, Tak Hong Cheung, Ting Fan Leung, and ChanPaul K SPKS.
• From the School of Public Health and Primary Care (MCSW, SYSW); Department of Paediatrics (EASN, FWTC, TFL); Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (CL); Department of Medicine and Therapeutics (NL, KWC); Department of Microbiology (MCWC, PKSC); Accident and Emergency Medicine Academic Unit (THR); Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong (THC); Department of Pathology (Microbiology), Queen Elizabeth Hospital (CKCL); and Department of Pathology (Microbiology), Princess Margaret Hospital (BL), Hong Kong SAR.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May 1; 95 (19): e3359e3359.

AbstractWe evaluated the acceptability of an additional ad hoc influenza vaccination among the health care professionals following seasons with significant antigenic drift.Self-administered, anonymous surveys were performed by hard copy questionnaires in public hospitals, and by an on-line platform available to all healthcare professionals, from April 1st to May 31st, 2015. A total of 1290 healthcare professionals completed the questionnaires, including doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals working in both the public and private systems.Only 31.8% of participating respondents expressed an intention to receive the additional vaccine, despite that the majority of them agreed or strongly agreed that it would bring benefit to the community (88.9%), save lives (86.7%), reduce medical expenses (76.3%), satisfy public expectation (82.8%), and increase awareness of vaccination (86.1%). However, a significant proportion expressed concern that the vaccine could disturb the normal immunization schedule (45.5%); felt uncertain what to do in the next vaccination round (66.0%); perceived that the summer peak might not occur (48.2%); and believed that the summer peak might not be of the same virus (83.5%). Furthermore, 27.8% of all respondents expected that the additional vaccination could weaken the efficacy of previous vaccinations; 51.3% was concerned about side effects; and 61.3% estimated that there would be a low uptake rate. If the supply of vaccine was limited, higher priority groups were considered to include the elderly aged ≥65 years with chronic medical conditions (89.2%), the elderly living in residential care homes (87.4%), and long-stay residents of institutions for the disabled (80.7%). The strongest factors associated with accepting the additional vaccine included immunization with influenza vaccines in the past 3 years, higher perceived risk of contracting influenza, and higher perceived severity of the disease impact.The acceptability to an additional ad hoc influenza vaccination was low among healthcare professionals. This could have a negative impact on such additional vaccination campaigns since healthcare professionals are a key driver for vaccine acceptance. The discordance in perceived risk and acceptance of vaccination regarding self versus public deserves further evaluation.

29 keywords...

hide…