How rural and urban parents describe convenience in the context of school-based influenza vaccination: a qualitative study

BMC Health Services Research

Amy E Davis⁴  Christine J Frank²  Judy MacDonald³  Ramona Collins²  Margaret L Russell¹  Candace Lind² 

[1]Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

[2]Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary T2N 1N4, Alberta, Canada

[3]Alberta Health Services & Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

[4]University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

关键词: Rural population;    Community health planning;    Health services research;    Qualitative Research;    Alberta;    Canada;    Schools;    Immunization programs;    Health services accessibility;    Parents;   

Others  :  1089803
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0663-5

 received in 2014-05-12, accepted in 2014-12-15,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Seasonal influenza vaccine uptake among school-age children has been low, particularly among rural children, even in jurisdictions in Canada where this immunization is publicly funded. Providing this vaccination at school may be convenient for parents and might contribute to increased vaccine uptake, particularly among rural children. We explore the construct of convenience as an advantage of school based influenza vaccination. We also explore for rural urban differences in this construct.

Methods

Participants were parents of school-aged children from Alberta, Canada. We qualitatively analyzed focus group data from rural parents using a thematic template that emerged from prior work with urban parents. Both groups of parents had participated in focus groups to explore their perspectives on the acceptability of adding an annual influenza immunization to the immunization program that is currently delivered in Alberta schools. Data from within the theme of ‘convenience’ from both rural and urban parents were then further explored for sub-themes within convenience.

Results

Data were obtained from nine rural and nine urban focus groups. The template of themes that had arisen from prior analysis of the urban data applied to the rural data. Convenience was a third level theme under Advantages. Five fourth level themes emerged from within convenience. Four of the five sub-themes were common to both rural and urban participants: reduction of parental burden to schedule, reduction in parental lost time, decrease in parental stress and increase in physical access points for influenza immunization. The fifth subtheme, increases temporal access to influenza immunization, emerged uniquely from the rural data.

Conclusions

Both rural and urban parents perceived that convenience would be an advantage of adding an annual influenza immunization to the vaccinations currently given to Alberta children at school. Improving temporal access to such immunization may be a more relevant aspect of convenience to rural than to urban parents.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Lind et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices--United States, 2013–2014 MMWR 2013, 62:1-43.
• [2]National Advisory Committee on Immunization: Statement on seasonal influenza vaccine for 2013–2014 Can Commun Dis Rep 2013, 39:1-37.
• [3]Venice II Consortium. Seasonal influenza vaccination in EU/EEA, influenza seasons 2011–2012. Mar 10. Available from http://venice.cineca.org/reports.html. Accessed 8 May 2014
• [4]Public Health Agency of Canada. Public Funding for Influenza Vaccination by Province/Territory (as of March 2013). 2013. Available from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/ptimprog-progimpt/fluvacc-eng.php. Accessed 27 September 2013
• [5]Statistics Canada. Influenza immunization, less than one year ago by age group and sex. 2012. Available from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/101/cst01/health101b-eng.htm. Accessed 16 January 2013
• [6]Alberta Health Services. Alberta respiratory virus surveillance report: update for flu weeks 31–34 (July 28 - Aug 24, 2013). 2013. Available from http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/2891.asp. Accessed 20 January 2014
• [7]Lambo J: The Descriptive Epidemiology of Influenza Vaccination and Adverse Events of Influenza Vaccination in Alberta for the 2010–2011 Vaccination Season. 2013.
• [8]Community Preventive Services Taskforce. Increasing Appropriate Vaccination: Vaccination Programs in Schools and Organized Child Care Centers. Guide to Community Preventive Services. 2009. 2009. Available from http://www.thecommunityguide.org/vaccines/RRschools_childcare.html. Accessed 20 January 2014
• [9]Public Health Agency of Canada. Publicly Funded Immunization Programs in Canada - Routine Schedule for Infants and Children (including special programs and catch-up programs). 2009.Available from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/ptimprog-progimpt/table-1-eng.php. Accessed 13 June 2010
• [10]Lind C, Russell ML, MacDonald J, Collins R, Frank CJ, Davis AE: School-based influenza vaccination: parents’ perspectives. PLoS One 2014, 9:e93490. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093490
• [11]Andersen RM, McCutcheon A, Aday LA, Chiu GY, Bell R: Exploring dimensions of access to medical care. Health Serv Res 1983, 18:49-74.
• [12]Clevenger LM, Pyrzanowski J, Curtis CR, Bull S, Crane LA, Barrow JC, Kempe A, Daley MF: Parents’ acceptance of adolescent immunizations outside of the traditional medical home. J Adolesc Health 2011, 49:133-140.
• [13]Sim J: Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus group. J Adv Nurs 1998, 28:345-352.
• [14]Krueger RA, Casey MA: Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 4th edition. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA; 2009.
• [15]Canada Post. Addressing Guidelines: Postal Code. 2014. Available from http://www.canadapost.ca/tools/pg/manual/PGaddress-e.asp#1383055. Accessed 31 March 2014
• [16]du Plessis V, Beshiri R, Bollman RD: Definitions of rural. Rural Small-Town Can Anal Bull 2001, 3:1-17.
• [17]Hamilton N, Bhatti T: Population Health Promotion: An Integrated Model of Population Health and Health Promotion. Health Promotion Development Divsion, Ottawa, Canada; 1996.
• [18]Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE: Applied Thematic Analysis. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA; 2012.
• [19]Sorensen M. Rural Alberta Profile: A Fifteen Year Census Analysis (1991–2006). 1–89. 6-30-2010. 2-17-2014.
• [20]Ricketts TC, Goldsmith LJ: Access in health services research: the battle of the frameworks. Nurs Outlook 2005, 53:274-280.
• [21]Fiedler JL: A review of the literature on access and utilization of medical care with special emphasis on rural primary care. Soc Sci Med 1981, 15:129-142.
• [22]Nagata JM, Hernández-Ramos I, Albrecht D, Franco-Paredes C: Social determinants of health and seasonal influenza vaccination in adults ≥65 years: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative data. BMC Public Health 2013, 13: doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-388
• [23]Probst JC, Laditka SB, Wang J-Y, Johnson AO. Mode of travel and actual distance traveled for medical or dental care by rural and urban residents. 2006. Columbia, South Carolina, South Carolina Rural Health Research Center