Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:21:56.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Veterans Affairs Medical Center Employee Comments Suggest Additional Educational Targets to Improve Influenza Vaccination Campaigns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Laila Castellino*
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Section at the Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio
V. Lorraine Cheek
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Section at the Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC)
Robin L.P. Jump
Affiliation:
Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC) and Infectious Disease Section at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC and the Division of Infectious Disease and HIV Medicine, Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.
*
Address correspondence to Laila Castellino MD, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 4100 W 3rd St (111W), Dayton OH 45428 ([email protected]).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
© 2014 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 

To the Editor—The Veterans Health Administration strongly encourages all employees to receive an annual influenza vaccine, with the goal of achieving a 90% vaccination rate among healthcare personnel (HCP) by 2020.1 A nationwide survey conducted by Schult et al. queried reasons that Veterans Affairs employees did not get the 2009–2010 influenza vaccine, offering 12 specific reasons for declining the vaccine.Reference Schult, Awosika and Hodgson2 Interactions with employees at two Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) raised the possibility of a wider array of reasons for vaccine refusal. We surveyed employees at both VAMCs regarding their reasons for accepting or declining the influenza vaccine in the 2013–2014 season, including the option to explain their views using comments entered as free text.

The institutional review boards at both participating facilities reviewed and approved the survey and study design. Employees at two VAMCs were invited via e-mail to participate in an anonymous, voluntary survey, accessed through an Internet link, that took <5 minutes to complete (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). The survey included questions similar to those previously described with the addition of free-text options for respondents to further explain their views.Reference Schult, Awosika and Hodgson2, 3 Each of the authors independently reviewed the free-text responses and grouped them into themes. Some respondents offered comments that fit >1 theme.

Of 498 respondents, 477 (96%) completed the survey. Among these, 363 (76%) reported receiving the 2013–2014 influenza vaccine. Respondents indicated the following reasons for getting a seasonal influenza vaccine: protect self (91%), protect friends and family (82%), availability of vaccine without cost (65%), protect patients (57%), previously had “the flu” (27%), healthcare provider recommendation (21%), mandatory requirement at a non-VHA workplace (8%), and other (6%). Respondents indicated the following reasons for not getting an influenza vaccine: other (53%), concern about side effects (37%), gives me “the flu” (17%), not needed (11%), does not work (11%), allergy (9%), dislike of shots (8%), healthcare provider recommendation (6%), sick when the vaccine was offered (4%), forgot (4%), no time (4%), attempted but not able (1%), and did not know I needed it (0%).

Among those who indicated that they received the vaccination, 95 individuals (26%) offered a total of 105 comments in the free-text portions of the survey. Among these, 31 respondents had suggestions for improving access or acceptance of the vaccine, 17 reported that convenience was part of the reason they took the vaccine, and 13 indicated that they take the vaccine every year. Four reported that they still became ill with influenza.

Among those who did not receive the vaccine, 65 individuals (57%) made a total of 82 comments in the free-text portions of the survey. Despite having 12 familiar rationales to choose from, most non-vaccinated respondents included “other” as a reason for refusing vaccination. While many of the comments expanded on the 12 rationales offered, 41 comments (50%) offered reasons not already included in the survey. We examined the themes of these comments, finding that 18 respondents cited alternative protection strategies for influenza prevention, while 13 offered a quasi-scientific rationale, 10 expressed mistrust of the government and pharmaceutical industry, and 9 indicated concern related to vaccine components (Table 1).

TABLE 1 Examples of Comments from Respondents Who Reported Not Getting the Influenza Vaccine

a Some comments have been edited for length or clarity.

Although the results from the multiple-choice portion of our survey were similar to those reported previously, analysis of free-text comments revealed rationales that had not been included on similar surveys.Reference Schult, Awosika and Hodgson2, 3 Addressing these rationales may suggest strategies for improving influenza vaccination rates among HCP. The Centers for Disease Control found that influenza vaccination rates among HCP are highest in settings where the vaccination is required.Reference Black, Yue and Ball4 Absent a mandatory requirement, targeted education remains the principal strategy for increasing influenza vaccination rates. Concerns raised by our survey respondents suggest additional themes to incorporate into educational campaigns. To allay concerns about ingredients or chemicals, highlighting the use of thimerosol-free vaccine may increase acceptance. Additional information about the economic benefits of influenza vaccination, extending to reducing healthcare costs, may create a positive interpretation of possible financial motivations. Details about the potential for someone with mild symptoms to transmit influenza to less fortunate people who lack a robust immune system might appeal to individuals who believe their personal immune system can withstand an influenza infection. This reasoning could be supported by a theme of altruism, asserting that HCP have an ethical and moral responsibility to protect their patients from influenza. Finally, frank acknowledgment that the influenza vaccine is not always effective may increase trust toward the campaign as a whole. This message should be closely coupled with an explanation that the protection conferred from this year’s vaccine may help offer personal immunity toward future influenza strains as well as decrease mortality among patients.Reference Voordouw, Sturkenboom and Dieleman5Reference Nichol, Nordin, Nelson, Mullooly and Hak7

Our study has some limitations. Based on the approximate numbers of total employees, we estimate low response rates: 14% at Facility A and 5% at Facility B. Additionally, the survey was sent to all employees at the medical centers rather than only those with direct patient contact. Furthermore, VAMC employees who refused the vaccine due to strong internal beliefs (ie, concerns about government/pharmaceutical industry) may have been more likely to participate in our survey, compared to those with less emotionally charged reasons (ie, forgot or sick when offered), creating a bias toward those with grievances about the vaccine. Nonetheless, given that 50% of our respondents chose “other” as a reason for declination, we recommend that future survey designs include candid comments from HCP.

Acknowledgments

Financial support: This work was supported by the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (T-21 Non-Institutional Alternative to Long-Term Care Grant (G541-3) to RLPJ and the Veterans Integrated Service Network 10 Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Centers (VISN 10 GRECC). RLPJ gratefully acknowledges the T. Franklin Williams Scholarship with funding provided by Atlantic Philanthropies, Inc., the John A. Hartford Foundation, the Association of Specialty Professors, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. This work was also made possible through the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland (UL1TR000439) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) component of the National Institutes of Health and NIH roadmap for Medical Research (RLPJ). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Potential conflicts of interest: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

REFERENCES

1. 2020 Topics & Objectives: Immunizations and Infectious Diseases; Objective IID-12.13. HealthyPeople2020. http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/immunization-and-infectious-diseases/objectives#4658. Published 2010. Accessed September 26, 2014.Google Scholar
2.Schult, TM, Awosika, ER, Hodgson, MJ, et al. Innovative approaches for understanding seasonal influenza vaccine declination in healthcare personnel support development of new campaign strategies. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:924931.Google Scholar
3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Influenza vaccination coverage among health-care personnel—United States, 2010–11 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:10731077.Google Scholar
4.Black, CL, Yue, X, Ball, SW, et al. Influenza vaccination coverage among health care personnel—United States, 2013–14 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014;63:805811.Google Scholar
5.Voordouw, AG, Sturkenboom, MM, Dieleman, JP, et al. Annual revaccination against influenza and mortality risk in community-dwelling elderly persons. JAMA 2004;292:20892095.Google Scholar
6.Carman, WF, Elder, AG, Wallace, LA, et al. Effects of influenza vaccination of health-care workers on mortality of elderly people in long-term care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000;355:9397.Google Scholar
7.Nichol, KL, Nordin, JD, Nelson, DB, Mullooly, JP, Hak, E. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in the community-dwelling elderly. N Engl J Med 2007;357:13731381.Google Scholar
Figure 0

TABLE 1 Examples of Comments from Respondents Who Reported Not Getting the Influenza Vaccine