Who knows more about immunization?: Survey of public health nurses and physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To report the findings of a knowledge survey of nurse and physician immunization providers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional postal survey assessing demographic characteristics and vaccine knowledge. SETTING: British Columbia (BC). PARTICIPANTS: Nurse and physician immunization providers in BC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge of vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccines in general, and vaccine administration and handling practices. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 256 nurses and 292 physicians (response rates of 48.6% and 18.3%, respectively). Most nurses (98.4%) reported receiving immunization training outside of the academic setting compared with 55.6% of physicians. Overall, nurse immunizers scored significantly higher than physician immunizers on all 3 domains of immunization knowledge (83.7% vs 72.8%, respectively; P < .001). Physicians scored highest on the vaccine-preventable disease domain and least well on the general vaccine domain. Nurses with more experience as health care providers scored higher. Physicians scored higher if they were female, served patient populations predominantly younger than 5 years, or received immunization training outside of academic settings. CONCLUSION: In BC, nurse immunizers appear to have higher overall immunization knowledge than physicians and are more likely to receive immunization training when in practice. Physician immunizers might benefit most from further training on vaccines and vaccine administration and handling.

Identifying attitudes, beliefs and reported practices of nurses and doctors as immunization providers.

AIM: This paper is a report of a study conducted to examine the attitudes, beliefs, behavioural intentions and self-reported behaviour of nurses and physicians relating to key immunization behaviours and compare the findings for nurses and physicians. BACKGROUND: Immunization is an important and effective public health intervention. Understanding immunization providers' attitudes and beliefs toward immunization has the potential to improve educational efforts and lead to behavioural change. METHOD: A postal survey was conducted with all immunization providers in British Columbia, Canada, in 2005. The survey elicited data on demographics, practice characteristics, attitudes, perceived social norms and perceived behavioural control related to key immunization behaviours. RESULTS: Responses were received from 344 nurses and 349 physicians. The response rate was 67% for nurses and 22% for physicians. More nurses than physicians thought that administering all recommended vaccines at one visit was important (89.2% vs. 63.2%P < 0.001); nurses felt more pressure from parents to administer all recommended vaccines (82.4% vs. 48.7%P < 0.001), and nurses were also more likely to intend to give all recommended vaccines at one visit (98.8% vs. 73.8%P < 0.001). Both nurses and physicians thought that their own receipt of influenza vaccine each year was important (88.9%, 87.1% respectively P = 0.65). CONCLUSION: The foundational work done to develop the survey tool can be used to modify it so that survey findings can be validated according to the Theory of Planned Behaviour. The results could inform the development of behavioural change interventions targeting the identified determinants of immunization provider behaviour.

One arm or two? Concurrent administration of meningococcal C conjugate and hepatitis B vaccines in pre-teens.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to: (a) compare rates of local reactions from meningococcal C conjugate (Neis Vac-C) and hepatitis B vaccines (Recombivax HB), and (b) compare local reactions when both injections were given in one arm versus one in each arm. METHODS: Schools were randomized to have grade six students receive both vaccines in one arm (One Arm Group), or one vaccine in each arm (Two Arm Group; MCC always given in left arm). Structured telephone interviews of parents were conducted, and respondents were asked about local and systemic reactions, interference with school or other activities, need for medical attention, and lost parental work time. FINDINGS: The Two Arm Group reported significantly more local redness >46 mm (6.5% vs. 0.5%, p < 0.001), moderate to severe tenderness (28% vs. 18%, p < 0.05), and drowsiness (14% vs. 7%, p < 0.05). When adjusted for sex, ethnicity, and town of residence, report of any tenderness was associated with town of residence only; moderate or severe tenderness was independently associated with the Two Arm Group (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.85). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for interference with school attendance or other activities, need for medical attention, or lost parental work time. Among participants of the Two Arm Group (188 students), there was more redness (6% vs. 2%, p < 0.05) and tenderness (54% vs. 32%, p < 0.001) experienced with Neis Vac-C than with Recombivax HB, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Injecting two vaccines in one arm did not cause more local reaction than one injection in each arm and remains an option for those who prefer it for logistical reasons, If vaccinating in two arms, Neis Vac-C should preferentially be given in the nondominant arm.