0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Health Care Professionals’ Interest in Vaccination Training in Switzerland: A Quantitative Survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives: Health care professionals (HCPs) play an important role for patients’ vaccination decisions. To counsel patients/clients appropriately, HCPs need current factual knowledge about vaccines and strong communication skills.

          Methods: We conducted an online survey with physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and midwives in Switzerland (01.11.2020–31.03.2021). We evaluated: 1) interest in vaccination knowledge and counseling training; 2) vaccination recommendation practices; 3) experience with vaccination counseling/administration; 4) comfort level in addressing vaccine hesitancy (VH); 5) perspectives on patient/client VH, delays, and refusals.

          Results: In total, 1,933 practicing HCPs responded (496 physicians, 226 pharmacists, 607 nurses, 604 midwives). 43% physicians, 31% pharmacists, 15% nurses, and 23% midwives felt comfortable counseling VH patients/clients. 96% physicians, 98% pharmacists, 85% nurses, and 91% midwives were interested in additional vaccination-related training. All professionals mentioned safety, efficacy, and side effects as topics of most interest for additional training.

          Conclusion: Results demonstrate a high interest among HCPs for additional vaccination-related training. In addition to factual information about vaccination, such training will likely benefit from a communication component, given the low rates of comfort reported by HCPs when counseling VH patients/clients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

          The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 12(1), 36-44
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in Europe: A qualitative study.

            Healthcare workers (HCWs) are often referred to as the most trusted source of vaccine-related information for their patients. However, the evidence suggests that a number of HCWs are vaccine-hesitant. This study consists of 65 semi-structured interviews with vaccine providers in Croatia, France, Greece, and Romania to investigate concerns HCWs might have about vaccination. The results revealed that vaccine hesitancy is present in all four countries among vaccine providers. The most important concern across all countries was the fear of vaccine side effects. New vaccines were singled out due to perceived lack of testing for vaccine safety and efficacy. Furthermore, while high trust in health authorities was expressed by HCWs, there was also strong mistrust of pharmaceutical companies due to perceived financial interests and lack of communication about side effects. The notion that it is a doctor's responsibility to respond to hesitant patients was reported in all countries. Concerns were also seen to be country- and context-specific. Strategies to improve confidence in vaccines should be adapted to the specific political, social, cultural and economic context of countries. Furthermore, while most interventions focus on education and improving information about vaccine safety, effectiveness, or the need for vaccines, concerns raised in this study identify other determinants of hesitancy that need addressing. The representativeness of the views of the interviewed HCWs must be interpreted with caution. This a qualitative study with a small sample size that included geographical areas where vaccination uptake was lower or where hesitancy was more prevalent and it reflects individual participants' beliefs and attitudes toward the topic. As HCWs have the potential of influencing patient vaccination uptake, it is crucial to improve their confidence in vaccination and engage them in activities targeting vaccine hesitancy among their patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cross-sectional Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Among Health Care Workers in Los Angeles

              Background: The rise of vaccine hesitancy poses real and existential threats to the prevention and control of vaccine-preventable diseases and will hinder efforts to mitigate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (1, 2). In the context of a highly publicized coronavirus vaccine rollout, initial uptake by health care workers (HCWs) is critical for safety, health system functioning, and public opinion. Objective: To understand general vaccine acceptance and specific attitudes toward forthcoming coronavirus vaccines among HCWs in Los Angeles, California. Methods: Using volunteer sampling, we obtained consent from and enrolled a cohort of 1069 asymptomatic HCWs employed by University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Health to track incidence and risk factors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (3). As an addendum to this study, a cross-sectional survey designed to assess attitudes toward vaccines, including prospective acceptance of novel coronavirus vaccines, was distributed to participants on 24 September 2020 and completed online through 16 October 2020. Descriptive statistics on survey respondents and reported attitudes toward novel coronavirus vaccines were tabulated. Answers to 3 Likert scale questions assessing thoughts on general vaccine utility and risk were assigned a point value from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”) and modeled using linear regression to determine marginally adjusted mean responses stratified by sex, race, ethnicity, age, and job role. We then calculated marginally adjusted proportions of COVID-19 vaccine uptake intent, controlling for participant demographic characteristics using multinomial regression with bootstrap postestimation. Analyses were performed using SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), and Stata 16 (StataCorp); the figure was produced using the ggplot2 package in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the UCLA Institutional Review Board (IRB #20-000478). Findings: In total, 609 enrollees (57.0%) completed the optional questionnaire; complete-case analysis resulted in an analytical sample of 540 survey participants. Similar to the larger study cohort, a majority of participants were female (71.7%), were White (57.0%), were aged 30 to 49 years (63.0%), and had an advanced degree (62.8%). Almost all respondents held jobs with direct patient contact (85.4%). Respondents overwhelmingly agreed on the utility of vaccines at large, including the protection they offer to recipients (mean Likert score, 4.69 [95% CI, 4.64 to 4.73]) and their positive externalities to the community (mean Likert score, 4.69 [CI, 4.65 to 4.74]), although distinct variation existed across job roles, with prescribing clinicians showing significantly higher average scores than nurses (Figure). A stepwise trend was observed for age, with younger participants showing greater agreement on the importance of vaccination to community health. General consensus was split on the relative risks of new versus established vaccines (mean Likert score, 3.23 [CI, 3.14 to 3.32]), although on average, respondents across demographic variables agreed that newer vaccines carry greater risk. Figure. Marginally adjusted mean Likert scores for key vaccine acceptance indicators, by demographic group. Answers to Likert scale questions were assigned a point value from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree). Multivariable linear regression was run to determine marginally adjusted mean responses stratified by sex, race, ethnicity, age, and job role. “All” indicates the overall, unadjusted mean Likert score. Figure. Marginally adjusted mean Likert scores for key vaccine acceptance indicators, by demographic group. Answers to Likert scale questions were assigned a point value from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree). Multivariable linear regression was run to determine marginally adjusted mean responses stratified by sex, race, ethnicity, age, and job role. “All” indicates the overall, unadjusted mean Likert score. Unlike for vaccines at large, fewer than half of participants (46.9%) felt that a novel coronavirus vaccine would protect them against COVID-19. Just over one third (34.8%) of participants expressed confidence in the scientific vetting process for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, with almost half (47.8%) reporting they would not be willing to participate in vaccine trials. Most participants (65.5%) indicated they would delay vaccination once coronavirus vaccines became available for distribution (49.4% would prefer to wait and see how the vaccine affects others first, and 16.1% would not get it soon but indicated they might in the future), and 1.30% never intend to get vaccinated. Compared with prescribing clinicians, other HCWs were about 20% to 30% more likely to delay or decline a coronavirus vaccine when all other demographic factors were held equal (Table). Participants identifying as Asian (23.9%) or Latino (26.2%) were less likely to accept vaccination immediately upon availability compared with those in other racial and ethnic groups. Health care workers aged 50 years or older were more likely than their younger coworkers to accept vaccination right away. Table. Marginally Adjusted Proportions of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Uptake Intentions, by Demographic Factor Table. Marginally Adjusted Proportions of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Uptake Intentions, by Demographic Factor Respondents were most heavily influenced by the fast-tracked development timeline (83.5%), the novel and unfolding science of SARS-CoV-2 (75.7%), and the political climate in which the research and regulatory process were playing out at the time of survey distribution (58.5%) in shaping their vaccination intent. Those planning to delay or decline vaccination cited concerns about fast-tracking regulatory procedures (21.9%) and a lack of transparency and/or publicly available information on newly developed vaccines (19.7%) as their primary rationale. Discussion: Health care workers serve on the frontlines of pandemic response efforts, are at high risk for occupational SARS-CoV-2 exposure and transmission, and act as ambassadors for evidence-based medical interventions. As the first recipients of coronavirus vaccines, their buy-in and participation in vaccination are critical in promoting uptake to a broader population (4, 5). Although participants overwhelmingly acknowledged the importance and utility of general vaccination to public health practice in our survey, they were widely hesitant about partaking in COVID-19 vaccination in trial or postmarket settings and expressed uncertainties about the regulatory approval and protective capabilities of novel SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Given the 57% survey response rate, selection bias is possible and may limit the generalizability of our findings. Now that vaccine rollout has begun in several countries, continued assessment of vaccine uptake and attitudes—especially efforts that include targeted sampling of persons from diverse socioeconomic, geographic, labor, and ethnopolitical backgrounds and those excluded from vaccine trials, such as pregnant women—will be critical to addressing the root causes of vaccine hesitancy in both HCWs and the general public, paving the way for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1439840/overview
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1342394/overview
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1261362/overview
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/23436/overview On behalf of : for the Swiss National Research Program NRP74 on Vaccine Hesitancy
                Journal
                Int J Public Health
                Int J Public Health
                Int J Public Health
                International Journal of Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1661-8556
                1661-8564
                30 November 2022
                2022
                : 67
                : 1604495
                Affiliations
                [1] 1 University Department of Medicine and Infectious Diseases Service , Kantonsspital Baselland , Bruderholz, Switzerland
                [2] 2 University of Basel , Basel, Switzerland
                [3] 3 Pharmaceutical Care Research Group , Basel, Switzerland
                [4] 4 Institute of Public Health, and Institute of Communication and Public Policy , Università della Svizzera italiana , Lugano, Switzerland
                [5] 5 Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH) , Basel, Switzerland
                [6] 6 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , University Hospital of Basel , Basel, Switzerland
                [7] 7 Swiss Nurses Association , Bern, Switzerland
                [8] 8 Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute , University of Zurich , Zurich, Switzerland
                [9] 9 Swiss School of Public Health , Zurich, Switzerland
                [10] 10 Center for Integrative Pediatrics , Department of Pediatrics , Fribourg Hospital HFR , Fribourg, Switzerland
                [11] 11 Faculty of Science and Medicine , University of Fribourg , Fribourg, Switzerland
                [12] 12 Institute of Sociological Research , Department of Sociology , University of Geneva , Geneva, Switzerland
                Author notes

                Edited by: Sonja Merten, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH), Switzerland

                Reviewed by: Phung Lang, University of Zurich, Switzerland

                *Correspondence: Michael J. Deml, michaeljdeml@ 123456gmail.com ; Philip E. Tarr, philip.tarr@ 123456unibas.ch
                [ † ]

                These authors have contributed equally to this work

                Article
                1604495
                10.3389/ijph.2022.1604495
                9749818
                36531605
                dd8252bb-432f-4eb1-bba2-dda782a15f7b
                Copyright © 2022 Lucas Ramanathan, Baldesberger, Dietrich, Speranza, Lüthy, Buhl, Gisin, Koch, Nicca, Suggs, Huber, Deml and Tarr.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 29 September 2021
                : 14 November 2022
                Categories
                Public Health Archive
                Original Article

                Public health
                vaccine hesitancy,communication,healthcare professional,vaccine knowledge,medical training

                Comments

                Comment on this article