Effect of a hospital campaign for influenza vaccination of healthcare workers

Joon-Young Song, Cheong Won Park, Hye Won Jeong, Hee-Jin Cheong, Woo Joo Kim, Sung Ran Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

58 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. To identify the factors that inhibit or motivate influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS. In March 2000, we prepared 34-item questionnaire for both vaccine recipients and nonrecipients regarding demographic characteristics, factors motivating and inhibiting vaccination, and knowledge and attitudes about influenza vaccination. On the basis of the results of our survey, an aggressive hospital vaccination campaign was undertaken. In April 2004, after the 4-year campaign, the same questionnaire was again administered to HCWs. RESULTS. In both 2000 and 2004, the main motives for undergoing influenza vaccination were "hospital campaign" and "recommendation by colleagues"; the percentage of respondents who were motivated by the hospital campaign had remarkably increased from 27% in 2000 to 52% in 2004 (P<.001), whereas the percentage who were motivated by recommendation by colleagues had not changed significantly (21% vs 14%). Overall, the 4 reasons most frequently cited by HCWs for noncompliance with vaccination were insufficient available time, confidence in their health, doubt about vaccine efficacy, and fear of injection. In 2000, vaccination rates were below 30%, irrespective of occupation. After an aggressive vaccination campaign, the increase in the vaccination rate was highest among the nursing staff, increasing from 21% in 2000 to 92% in 2004, whereas the vaccination rate among the physicians was still below 60%. CONCLUSION. We conclude that a hospital campaign can markedly improve influenza vaccination rates among HCWs. Both a mobile cart system and free vaccine supply contributed to improving the vaccination rates in our study. In addition, a specifically tailored intervention strategy was required.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)612-617
Number of pages6
JournalInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Volume27
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006 Jun 1

Fingerprint

Immunization Programs
Human Influenza
Vaccination
Delivery of Health Care
Vaccines
Nursing Staff
Occupations
Fear
Demography
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Immunology

Cite this

Effect of a hospital campaign for influenza vaccination of healthcare workers. / Song, Joon-Young; Park, Cheong Won; Jeong, Hye Won; Cheong, Hee-Jin; Kim, Woo Joo; Kim, Sung Ran.

In: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 27, No. 6, 01.06.2006, p. 612-617.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{6ad1c54dd61c4975907dd0b0bc8f98d8,
title = "Effect of a hospital campaign for influenza vaccination of healthcare workers",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. To identify the factors that inhibit or motivate influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS. In March 2000, we prepared 34-item questionnaire for both vaccine recipients and nonrecipients regarding demographic characteristics, factors motivating and inhibiting vaccination, and knowledge and attitudes about influenza vaccination. On the basis of the results of our survey, an aggressive hospital vaccination campaign was undertaken. In April 2004, after the 4-year campaign, the same questionnaire was again administered to HCWs. RESULTS. In both 2000 and 2004, the main motives for undergoing influenza vaccination were {"}hospital campaign{"} and {"}recommendation by colleagues{"}; the percentage of respondents who were motivated by the hospital campaign had remarkably increased from 27{\%} in 2000 to 52{\%} in 2004 (P<.001), whereas the percentage who were motivated by recommendation by colleagues had not changed significantly (21{\%} vs 14{\%}). Overall, the 4 reasons most frequently cited by HCWs for noncompliance with vaccination were insufficient available time, confidence in their health, doubt about vaccine efficacy, and fear of injection. In 2000, vaccination rates were below 30{\%}, irrespective of occupation. After an aggressive vaccination campaign, the increase in the vaccination rate was highest among the nursing staff, increasing from 21{\%} in 2000 to 92{\%} in 2004, whereas the vaccination rate among the physicians was still below 60{\%}. CONCLUSION. We conclude that a hospital campaign can markedly improve influenza vaccination rates among HCWs. Both a mobile cart system and free vaccine supply contributed to improving the vaccination rates in our study. In addition, a specifically tailored intervention strategy was required.",
author = "Joon-Young Song and Park, {Cheong Won} and Jeong, {Hye Won} and Hee-Jin Cheong and Kim, {Woo Joo} and Kim, {Sung Ran}",
year = "2006",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1086/504503",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "612--617",
journal = "Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology",
issn = "0899-823X",
publisher = "University of Chicago Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of a hospital campaign for influenza vaccination of healthcare workers

AU - Song, Joon-Young

AU - Park, Cheong Won

AU - Jeong, Hye Won

AU - Cheong, Hee-Jin

AU - Kim, Woo Joo

AU - Kim, Sung Ran

PY - 2006/6/1

Y1 - 2006/6/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE. To identify the factors that inhibit or motivate influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS. In March 2000, we prepared 34-item questionnaire for both vaccine recipients and nonrecipients regarding demographic characteristics, factors motivating and inhibiting vaccination, and knowledge and attitudes about influenza vaccination. On the basis of the results of our survey, an aggressive hospital vaccination campaign was undertaken. In April 2004, after the 4-year campaign, the same questionnaire was again administered to HCWs. RESULTS. In both 2000 and 2004, the main motives for undergoing influenza vaccination were "hospital campaign" and "recommendation by colleagues"; the percentage of respondents who were motivated by the hospital campaign had remarkably increased from 27% in 2000 to 52% in 2004 (P<.001), whereas the percentage who were motivated by recommendation by colleagues had not changed significantly (21% vs 14%). Overall, the 4 reasons most frequently cited by HCWs for noncompliance with vaccination were insufficient available time, confidence in their health, doubt about vaccine efficacy, and fear of injection. In 2000, vaccination rates were below 30%, irrespective of occupation. After an aggressive vaccination campaign, the increase in the vaccination rate was highest among the nursing staff, increasing from 21% in 2000 to 92% in 2004, whereas the vaccination rate among the physicians was still below 60%. CONCLUSION. We conclude that a hospital campaign can markedly improve influenza vaccination rates among HCWs. Both a mobile cart system and free vaccine supply contributed to improving the vaccination rates in our study. In addition, a specifically tailored intervention strategy was required.

AB - OBJECTIVE. To identify the factors that inhibit or motivate influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS. In March 2000, we prepared 34-item questionnaire for both vaccine recipients and nonrecipients regarding demographic characteristics, factors motivating and inhibiting vaccination, and knowledge and attitudes about influenza vaccination. On the basis of the results of our survey, an aggressive hospital vaccination campaign was undertaken. In April 2004, after the 4-year campaign, the same questionnaire was again administered to HCWs. RESULTS. In both 2000 and 2004, the main motives for undergoing influenza vaccination were "hospital campaign" and "recommendation by colleagues"; the percentage of respondents who were motivated by the hospital campaign had remarkably increased from 27% in 2000 to 52% in 2004 (P<.001), whereas the percentage who were motivated by recommendation by colleagues had not changed significantly (21% vs 14%). Overall, the 4 reasons most frequently cited by HCWs for noncompliance with vaccination were insufficient available time, confidence in their health, doubt about vaccine efficacy, and fear of injection. In 2000, vaccination rates were below 30%, irrespective of occupation. After an aggressive vaccination campaign, the increase in the vaccination rate was highest among the nursing staff, increasing from 21% in 2000 to 92% in 2004, whereas the vaccination rate among the physicians was still below 60%. CONCLUSION. We conclude that a hospital campaign can markedly improve influenza vaccination rates among HCWs. Both a mobile cart system and free vaccine supply contributed to improving the vaccination rates in our study. In addition, a specifically tailored intervention strategy was required.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745793993&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745793993&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/504503

DO - 10.1086/504503

M3 - Review article

C2 - 16755482

AN - SCOPUS:33745793993

VL - 27

SP - 612

EP - 617

JO - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

JF - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

SN - 0899-823X

IS - 6

ER -