Euro Surveill. Public perceptions in relation to intention to receive pandemic influenza vaccination in a random population sample: evidence from a cross-sectional telephone survey

[Giuseppe]

Public perceptions in relation to intention to receive pandemic influenza vaccination in a random population sample: evidence from a cross-sectional telephone survey (Euro Surveill., edited)

Eurosurveillance, Volume 14, Issue 49, 10 December 2009
Rapid communications
Public perceptions in relation to intention to receive pandemic influenza vaccination in a random population sample: evidence from a cross-sectional telephone survey
V Sypsa¹, T Livanios², M Psichogiou³, M Malliori⁴, S Tsiodras⁵, I Nikolakopoulos⁶, A Hatzakis ()¹

1. Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Athens University Medical School, Athens, Greece
2. Opinion Marketing Research, Athens, Greece
3. First Department of Propaedeutic Medicine, Laiko General Hospital, Athens, University Medical School, Athens, Greece
4. Department of Psychiatry, Athens University Medical School, Athens, Greece
5. 4th Department of Internal Medicine, University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Xaidari, Greece
6. Faculty of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

<hr> Citation style for this article: Sypsa V, Livanios T, Psichogiou M, Malliori M, Tsiodras S, Nikolakopoulos I, Hatzakis A. Public perceptions in relation to intention to receive pandemic influenza vaccination in a random population sample: evidence from a cross-sectional telephone survey . Euro Surveill. 2009;14(49):pii=19437. Available online: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/View...rticleId=19437
Date of submission: 04 December 2009
<hr> A cross-sectional telephone survey on a nationally representative sample of 1,000 Greek households was performed to assess the acceptability of the pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v vaccine, factors associated with intention to decline and stated reasons for declining vaccination. The survey was initiated the last week of August 2009 (week 35) and is still ongoing (analysis up to week 44). The percentage of participants answering they would ?probably not/definitely not? accept the vaccine increased from 47.1% in week 35 to 63.1% in week 44 (test for trend: p<0.001). More than half of the people which chronic illnesses (53.3%) indicated ?probably not/definitely not?. Factors associated with intention to decline vaccination were female sex, age between 30-64 years, perception of low likelihood of getting infected or of low risk associated with influenza, and absence of household members suffering from chronic illnesses. For the majority of the respondents (59.8%), the main reason for intending to decline vaccination was the belief that the vaccine might not be safe. Promotion of vaccination programmes should be designed taking into account the attitudinal barriers to the pandemic vaccine.

<hr>Introduction One of the first priority actions following the declaration of influenza A(H1N1)v as the first pandemic of the 21st century was the timely development of a safe and effective vaccine. Although vaccination is an effective measure to reduce the number of infections, hospitalisations and deaths, modelling studies have shown that the impact of vaccination depends strongly on the time when it is initiated as well as on the coverage of the target populations [1-3]. Until the beginning of November 2009, the European Commission had granted authorisation for three specific influenza A(H1N1)v vaccines and vaccination has already started in several European countries. However, there is a major concern about the acceptability of the pandemic vaccine among target populations in several European countries. In the present study, we analysed the data from a weekly telephone survey carried out in the Greek population in order to assess the levels of acceptance of the vaccine and the related attitudinal barriers.
Methods
Telephone survey
A telephone survey on 1,000 households has been carried out in Greece on a weekly basis starting from the last week of August 2009 (week 35) and was still ongoing until the time of this analysis (week 44). One of the aims of the study was to assess perceptions in relation to risks of pandemic influenza A(H1N1) and the attitude towards immunisation. Proportional quota sampling was used to ensure that selected households were representative of the total of Greek households, with quotas based on household size and urban/rural location. The average household size in the selected households was 2.9 persons. The mean age of the respondents was 51.9 (standard deviation  17.0) years and 65.8% of them were female.
One participant per household was asked to provide answers to questions about the age and sex of the household members, knowledge and perceptions about influenza A(H1N1)v, the presence of members with chronic illnesses etc. Chronic illnesses included chronic respiratory diseases (including asthma), chronic cardiovascular diseases (except hypertension), chronic metabolic disorders (including diabetes mellitus), chronic renal and hepatic diseases, haematological disorders (including sickle cell disease), immunosuppression and chronic neurological/neuromuscular diseases. A specific question was asked concerning the willingness of the participants to accept vaccination once the pandemic vaccine becomes available: ?Do you consider getting vaccinated against the novel influenza (you or the other members of your household) once the vaccine becomes available?? with five possible answers (?definitely yes?, ?probably yes?, ?probably not?, ?definitely not?, ?don?t know?).
Statistical methods
The presence of trend in the intentions of the population sampled every week was evaluated using the chi-squared test for trend. The data from week 44 were further used to identify associations between questionnaire-related variables and the reported vaccination intentions using one-way analysis of variance and the chi-squared test. A multiple logistic regression model was used to evaluate independent predictors of intention to decline the vaccine (where the answers were grouped as ?definitely not/probably not? versus ?definitely yes/probably yes?). A similar model was used to identify the profile of a non-negligible proportion of the sample answering ?don't know? (versus ?definitely yes/probably yes?).
Results
Overall, according to the most recent data of week 44, 63.1% of the sample indicated ?probably not/definitely not? as their intention to get vaccinated. The trends from week 35 through week 44 in the willingness of the respondents to get the pandemic vaccine are depicted in Figure 1 (1,000 persons per week). The percentage of participants answering ?definitely not? increased from 32.3% on week 35 to 45.8% in week 44 (test for trend: p<0.001). The proportion of individuals responding ?definitely yes? decreased from 22.9% in week 35 to 9.1% in week 44 (test for trend: p<0.001).
Figure 1. Trends in respondents? intention to receive pandemic vaccine, Greece, 2009 (1,000 respondents per week)

Respondents' age, sex and educational attainment, the presence of chronic illness and history of seasonal influenza vaccination in the past year (of the respondents and of members of their household), presence in the household of children aged 0-12 years or of individuals aged 65 or older, and respondents' perceptions concerning the risk related to infection were associated with the reported intention towards getting vaccinated (Table 1). Women intended to decline vaccination at higher rates (67.6%) compared with men (54.4%) and were more determined in their answer (51.8% answered ?definitely not?). Persons with a history of previous seasonal influenza vaccine reported intention to decline vaccination at lower rates compared with those who have not received that vaccine before (45.5% versus 67.2%). It is of note that more than half of the respondents with chronic conditions (53.3%) did not intend to accept pandemic vaccination (?probably not/definitely not?) and seven of the 10 pregnant women in the sample provided ?definitely not? as an answer.
Table 1. Univariate association of variables potentially affecting respondents? intentions concerning vaccination, Greece, 2009

According to multiple logistic regression analysis, respondents who did not intend to get vaccinated were more often found among females (odds ratio (OR) versus males: 2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.94 to 3.90, p<0.001), among individuals aged 30-64 years (OR versus 15-29 year-olds: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.07 to 3.22, p=0.029), among those with a perception of low likelihood of getting infected or low risk associated with it (OR (95% CI) compared to those reporting ?likely of getting infected and dangerous?: 2.72 (1.73 to 4.27) for those answering ?likely but not dangerous? and 3.26 (1.92 to 5.53) for those reporting ?not likely at all?, p<0.001) (Table 2). Additionally, participants from households where no member suffered from chronic illnesses were more likely to provide negative answers concerning vaccination (OR 1.60 versus households with members suffering from chronic illness, 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.13, p=0.013). A multiple logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with higher probability of answering ?I don't know? compared to ?probably yes/definitely yes?. Females and individuals reporting a low educational status of the head of their household were more likely to be undecided whether to get vaccinated or not (females versus males: OR=2.42, 95% CI: 1.50 to 3.93, p<0.001 and primary/three-year high school versus nine-year high school/university: OR=2.24, 95% CI: 1.35 to 3.73, p=0.002).
Table 2. Multiple logistic regression models for intention to decline pandemic vaccination (versus those intending to accept), Greece, 2009

In week 44, 631 participants who indicated ?probably not? or ?definitely not? as their intention to get vaccinated were further asked to indicate their reasons among a pre-defined set of possible answers (multiple answers were allowed) (Figure 2). For the vast majority of the respondents (59.8%), the main reason was their belief that the vaccine might not be safe.
Figure 2. Reasons for intention to decline pandemic vaccination as reported by 631 participants in week 44/2009 (multiple answers were allowed), Greece

Discussion
According to our findings, the intention to decline vaccination against pandemic influenza A(H1N1) showed increasing trends since the end of August 2009 and reached 63% in week 44 (26 October-1 November 2009). The corresponding rate of likely acceptance in week 44 was 22.2%, whereas a considerable proportion of the population (15%) had not decided yet. Vaccination had not started in Greece at that time. The most frequently reported barrier against the uptake of vaccination was the fear that the vaccine might not be safe. It is noteworthy that the rates of intention to decline among individuals belonging to vaccination target groups were high: 53.3% among people with chronic conditions and 70.0% in a small sample of pregnant women. Factors independently associated with intention to decline vaccination were female sex, age between 30 and 64 years, perception of low likelihood of getting infected or of low risk associated with it, and absence of household members suffering from chronic illnesses.
To our knowledge, this is the only study conducted so far in a European population during the ongoing influenza A(H1N1) pandemic that assesses perceptions towards influenza, willingness to accept vaccination and related barriers in vaccine uptake. The sample was large (1,000 households per week) and representative of Greek households with quotas based on household size and urban/rural location. Data was collected on numerous items that allowed identifying the profile of the population that will be less likely to accept vaccination. It should be taken into account that as an epidemic unfolds in a population, intentions may change. Other factors, such as media attention or vaccine promotion programmes, may also play a role in shaping perceptions and attitudes. These may differ from country to country and as a result, our estimates concerning willingness to accept vaccination might not strictly apply in the case of other populations. However, as those who do not wish to get vaccinated may have similar characteristics in all countries, qualitative results concerning attitudinal barriers could be used to explain negative intentions towards vaccine uptake in other countries too.
Low rates of intention to accept vaccination have also been reported by other studies on the current pandemic or pre-pandemic vaccines [4-7]. As in our study, perceptions concerning the risk associated with infection were consistently found to affect the intention to accept or decline vaccination and the fear of side-effects was the most frequently reported barrier [6,7]. Even in the case of seasonal influenza, concerns about side effects were reported at high rates (43%) as a reason for avoiding immunization [8].
Overall, this study has identified high rates of intention to decline pandemic vaccination in the Greek population, even among vaccination target groups, mainly due to the perception that the vaccine might not be safe. Vaccination promotion programmes should be carefully designed in order to achieve timely vaccination of the target populations at satisfactory levels of coverage.
<hr>References

1. Ferguson NM, Cummings DA, Fraser C, Cajka JC, Cooley PC, Burke DS. Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic. Nature. 2006;442(7101):448-52.
2. Carrat F, Luong J, Lao H, Sall? AV, Lajaunie C, Wackernagel H. A 'small-world-like' model for comparing interventions aimed at preventing and controlling influenza pandemics. BMC Med. 2006;4:26.
3. Sypsa V, Pavlopoulou I, Hatzakis A. Use of an inactivated vaccine in mitigating pandemic influenza A(H1N1) spread: a modelling study to assess the impact of vaccination timing and prioritisation strategies. Euro Surveill. 2009;14(41):pii=19356. Available from: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/View...rticleId=19356
4. Maurer J, Harris KM, Parker A, Lurie N. Does receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine predict intention to receive novel H1N1 vaccine: evidence from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults. Vaccine. 2009;27(42):5732-4.
5. Lau JT, Yeung NC, Choi KC, Cheng MY, Tsui HY, Griffiths S. Acceptability of A/H1N1 vaccination during pandemic phase of influenza A/H1N1 in Hong Kong: population based cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2009;339:b4164.
6. Chor JS, Ngai KL, Goggins WB, Wong MC, Wong SY, Lee N, et al. Willingness of Hong Kong healthcare workers to accept pre-pandemic influenza vaccination at different WHO alert levels: two questionnaire surveys. BMJ. 2009;339:b3391.
7. Pareek M, Clark T, Dillon H, Kumar R, Stephenson I. Willingness of healthcare workers to accept voluntary stockpiled H5N1 vaccine in advance of pandemic activity. Vaccine 2009;27(8):1242-7.
8. Johnson DR, Nichol KL, Lipczynski K. Barriers to adult immunization. Am J Med. 2008;121(7 Suppl 2):S28-35.

-
------

[JJackson]

Re: Euro Surveill. Public perceptions in relation to intention to receive pandemic influenza vaccination in a random population sample: evidence from a cross-sectional telephone survey

If this is representative of vaccine perceptions more generally we have a serious communication problem. It is worth having a poke around in the details in the tables as many of them are very worrying. Of the pregnant women in the sample 70% said definitely not. Women definitely would only 6%. Even when they said yes to having a chronic illness they still overwhelmingly said no to the vaccine.

[tropical]

Re: Euro Surveill. Public perceptions in relation to intention to receive pandemic influenza vaccination in a random population sample: evidence from a cross-sectional telephone survey

Instead of to be communication problem, this is probably a supposed risk problem.
The same med professionals in high numbers round away from such vaccinations in many areas.

The insistance on added adjuvants, instead of producing more vaccine quantities, inserted additional variables.

As preservatives/aditives inserted in the food chain, if one could feed itself with more naturaly grow and untreated/unprocessed food, less will be the possible pre./aditives additional influx.
The same for the vaccines.

Second, to arrange the productions without preparing in advance globaly enaugh individual already prepared syringe body vials, was a failure.
Why insist on bulk multiusage containers, which once opened are tricky to be preserved for a day or less, or to organize patients to came at the fresh opening time;
or it must be thrown after, or it will represent further tamperings by refiling to individual doses in doubtfull later environment ...

[JJackson]

Re: Euro Surveill. Public perceptions in relation to intention to receive pandemic influenza vaccination in a random population sample: evidence from a cross-sectional telephone survey

Instead of to be communication problem, this is probably a supposed risk problem.

Tropical is that not the same thing? There is always a problem if you are going to be giving 100s of millions of vaccine shots you will get adverse reactions and you will not find all of them at the clinical trials stage because you will never get a large enough trial. There have now been a large number of doses used and if there were adverse reactions in any significant numbers they would be visible. I doubt there has ever been as closely watched vaccine roll-out and it is broadly safe - certainly a lot more so than catching this flu.

Ask any ICU doctor if his beds have flu patients or vaccine reaction patients in them. This is the message that should be hammered home and it is obviously not being understood.