RESUMO
A study was conducted to assess the degree of pertussis underreporting in Italy. An analysis was performed to compare the frequency of pertussis infections estimated using seroprevalence data with the pertussis incidence based on reported cases among the Italian population. For this purpose, the proportion of subjects who had an anti-PT ≥ 100 IU/mL (indicative of B. pertussis infection within the last 12 months) was compared with the reported incidence rate among the Italian population ≥5 years old, divided into two age groups (6-14 and ≥15 years old), obtained from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) database. The pertussis incidence rate in the Italian population ≥5 years old reported by the ECDC in 2018 was 6.75/100,000 in the 5-14 age group and 0.28/100,000 in the ≥15 age group. The proportion of subjects recruited in the present study with an anti-PT ≥ 100 IU/mL was 0.95% in the 6-14 age group and 0.97% in the ≥15 age group. The estimated rate of pertussis infections based on seroprevalence was approximately 141-fold and 3452-fold higher than the reported incidence in the 6-14 age group and in the ≥15 age group, respectively. Quantification of underreporting can allow for the burden of pertussis, as well as the impact of ongoing vaccination, to be better evaluated.
RESUMO
In Italy, in 2016, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to estimate vaccine hesitancy and investigate its determinants among parents of children aged 16-36â¯months. Data on parental attitudes and beliefs about vaccinations were collected through a questionnaire administered online or self-administered at pediatricians' offices and nurseries. Parents were classified as pro-vaccine, vaccine-hesitant or anti-vaccine, according to self-reported tetanus and measles vaccination status of their child. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate factors associated with hesitancy. A total of 3130 questionnaires were analysed: 83.7% of parents were pro-vaccine, 15.6% vaccine-hesitant and 0.7% anti-vaccine. Safety concerns are the main reported reason for refusing (38.1%) or interrupting (42.4%) vaccination. Anti-vaccine and hesitant parents are significantly more afraid than pro-vaccine parents of short-term (85.7 and 79.7% vs 60.4%) and long-term (95.2 and 72.3% vs 43.7%) vaccine adverse reactions. Most pro-vaccine and hesitant parents agree about the benefits of vaccinations. Family pediatricians are considered a reliable source of information by most pro-vaccine and hesitant parents (96.9 and 83.3% respectively), against 45% of anti-vaccine parents. The main factors associated with hesitancy were found to be: not having received from a paediatrician a recommendation to fully vaccinate their child [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 3.21, 95% CI: 2.14-4.79], having received discordant opinions on vaccinations (AOR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.11-2.43), having met parents of children who experienced serious adverse reactions (AOR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.03-2.15), and mainly using non-traditional medical treatments (AOR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.31-3.19). Vaccine safety is perceived as a concern by all parents, although more so by hesitant and anti-vaccine parents. Similarly to pro-vaccine parents, hesitant parents consider vaccination an important prevention tool and trust their family pediatricians, suggesting that they could benefit from appropriate communication interventions. Training health professionals and providing homogenous information about vaccinations, in line with national recommendations, are crucial for responding to their concerns.
Assuntos
Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Pais , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde , Vacinação , Pré-Escolar , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Itália , Masculino , Pais/psicologia , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/psicologia , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Vigilância em Saúde Pública , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were: a) to evaluate attitudes and practices of health care workers (HCWs) towards influenza vaccination and their opinion regarding a vaccination promotion toolkit; b) to estimate hospital HCWs' influenza vaccination coverage rates (VC). METHODS: The Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital (OPBG) is an academic hospital in Italy. Since 2009, free influenza vaccination is offered to HCWs during working hours. In October-December 2013, a communication campaign based on a standardized toolkit was conducted. In December 2013, we performed a cross-sectional survey in a sample of hospital wards, based on a self-administered questionnaire including participants' characteristics; self-reported influenza vaccination history; reasons for vaccination or missed vaccination; opinion regarding the toolkit. Multivariable logistic analysis was used to assess independent predictors of influenza vaccination status. Annual VC for years 2009-2013 was estimated by using the number of seasonal influenza vaccine doses administered to HCWs as numerator, and the number of hospital HCWs as denominator. RESULTS: Out of 191 HCWs who participated in the survey, 35.6% reported at least one influenza vaccination during their life; 6.8% adhered to annual revaccination. Years of service and professional category were significantly and independently associated with vaccination (adjusted-OR: 2.4 for > 10 years of service, compared to < 5 years of service; adjusted-OR: 2.6 for physicians compared to nurses). Patient protection was the main reported reason for vaccination (34.3%); considering influenza a mild disease was the main reason for non-vaccination (36.9%); poor vaccine effectiveness was the main reason for missed annual revaccination (28.8%). Overall, 75% of respondents saw at least one promotion tool; 65.6% of them found the information useful. Hospital VC decreased from 30% in 2009, to 5% in 2012. In 2013, VC was 14%. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory influenza VC in HCWs is hard to achieve. In 2013, along with the toolkit implementation, we observed an increase in HCWs' vaccination coverage, nevertheless, it remained unsatisfactory. Tailored information strategies targeting nurses and recently employed HCWs should be implemented. Institution of declination statements, adding influenza vaccination to financial incentive systems, or vaccination requirements should also be considered to increase influenza VC among HCWs.