Role of intervention programs to increase influenza vaccination in Israel

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research

Joseph S Pliskin²  Nadav Davidovitch²  Arieh Gavious³  Dan Yamin¹ 

[1] Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel;Department of Health Systems Management, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel;School of Management, Ono Academic College, Kiryat Ono, Israel

关键词: Risk perception;    Vaccination behavior;    Incentives;    Vaccination intervention programs;    Influenza vaccination;   

Others  :  803409
DOI  :  10.1186/2045-4015-3-13

 received in 2013-11-24, accepted in 2014-04-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Influenza vaccination is the most efficient and cost-effective method to prevent influenza. To increase vaccination coverage, health authorities use various intervention programs (IPs), such as cost subsidies or placing vaccination centers in malls to make vaccination more accessible. Nevertheless, vaccination coverage has been sub-optimal in most developed countries, including in Israel.

Methods

To determine possible drivers of individual vaccination uptake and to examine the effectiveness of different IPs in increasing vaccination, we analyzed a telephone survey of a representative sample of the Israeli population conducted in March 2011 (n = 470), and paper questionnaires at the work place and at homes during April-July 2011 to several sub-populations : soldiers (n = 81), medical staff (n = 107), ultra-orthodox Jews (n = 72), Israeli Arabs (n = 87) and students (n = 85).

Results

The population can be stratified into three sub-groups: Acceptors, who receive vaccination regardless of IPs (22%), Conditional Acceptors, who are only vaccinated because of IP implementation (44%) and Non-Acceptors, who are not vaccinated despite IP implementation (34%). Our analysis shows that the risk perception towards influenza relative to vaccination is higher in the Acceptors than in the Conditional Acceptors, with the Non-Acceptors showing the lowest risk perception (P < 0.01). For Conditional Acceptors, physician recommendation is the most effective IP, regardless of the sub-population tested (P = 0.04). Students and low-income participants were more prone than any others to be persuaded to receive vaccination following IPs. In addition, financial incentives were more effective for ultra-religious orthodox Jews and students; vaccinations in more accessible areas were more effective for the ultra-religious orthodox, soldiers, and medical personnel; and TV and radio advertisements were more effective for people above 50 relative to other age groups.

Conclusions

Risk perception of influenza and vaccination governs the likelihood of successful implementation of IPs. Policy makers in Israel should invest efforts to increase the knowledge regarding influenza and vaccination, and should apply specific interventions customized to the preferences and diverse perceptions among the Israeli sub-populations.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Yamin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Molinari N-AM, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Messonnier ML, Thompson WW, Wortley PM, Weintraub E, Bridges CB: The annual impact of seasonal influenza in the US: measuring disease burden and costs. Vaccine 2007, 25:5086-5096.
• [2]Vynnycky E, White R: An Introduction to Infectious Disease Modelling. USA: Oxford University Press; 2010.
• [3]Stephenson I, Hayden F, Osterhaus A, Howard W, Pervikov Y, Palkonyay L, Kieny M-P: Report of the fourth meeting on “Influenza vaccines that induce broad spectrum and long-lasting immune responses”, World Health Organization and Wellcome Trust, London, United Kingdom, 9–10 November 2009. Vaccine 2010, 28:3875-3882.
• [4]Balicer RD, Huerta M, Davidovitch N, Grotto I: Cost-benefit of stockpiling drugs for influenza pandemic. Emerg Infect Dis 2005, 11:1280-1282.
• [5]Grohskopf L, Shay DK, Shimabukuro T, Sokolow L, Keitel W, Bresee JS, Cox N: Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — United States, 2013–2014. Atlanta: US Center for disease control and prevention; 2013:1-43.
• [6]Fiore AE, Uyeki TM, Broder K, Finelli GL, Singleton J, Iskander JK, Wortley PM, Shay DK: Bresee SJ, J. Prevention and Control of Influenza with Vaccines: CN; 2010.
• [7]Prevention and control of influenza in Israel http://www.health.gov.il/Subjects/vaccines/Pages/Winter_flu.aspx webcite
• [8]Yamin D: Balicer RD. Cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in prior pneumonia patients: Galvani AP; 2014.
• [9]Mereckiene J, Cotter S, Weber JT, Nicoll A, Lévy-Bruhl D, Ferro A, Tridente G, Zanoni G, Berra P, Salmaso S, O’Flanagan D: Low coverage of seasonal influenza vaccination in the elderly in many European countries. Euro Surveill 2008, 13:1-3.
• [10]Blank PR, Schwenkglenks M, Szucs TD: Vaccination coverage rates in eleven European countries during two consecutive influenza seasons. J Infect 2009, 58:446-458.
• [11]Yamin D, Gavious A: Incentives’ effect in influenza vaccination. Manage Sci 2013, 59:2667-2686.
• [12]Funk S, Salathé M, Jansen VAA: Modelling the influence of human behaviour on the spread of infectious diseases: a review. J R Soc Interface 2010, 7:1247-1256.
• [13]Galvani AP, Reluga TC, Chapman GB: Long-standing influenza vaccination policy is in accord with individual self-interest but not with the utilitarian optimum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007, 104:5692-5697.
• [14]Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND: Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol 2007, 26:136-145.
• [15]Chapman GB, Coups EJ: Emotions and preventive health behavior: worry, regret, and influenza vaccination. Heal Psychol 2006, 25:82-90.
• [16]Poland GA: The 2009–2010 influenza pandemic: effects on pandemic and seasonal vaccine uptake and lessons learned for seasonal vaccination campaigns. Vaccine 2010, 28(Suppl 4):D3-D13.
• [17]Weinstein ND, Kwitel A, McCaul KD, Magnan RE, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX: Risk perceptions: assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychol 2007, 26:146-151.
• [18]Briss PA, Rodewald LE, Hinman AR, Shefer AM, Strikas RA, Bernier RR, Carande-Kulis VG, Yusuf HR, Ndiaye SM, Williams SM: Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to improve vaccination coverage in children, adolescents, and adults. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000, 18(1 Suppl):97-140.
• [19]Influenza monitoring in Israel and the World http://www.old.health.gov.il/pages/default.asp?PageId=3987&parentId=507&catId=78&maincat=25 webcite
• [20]Bish A, Yardley L, Nicoll A, Michie S: Factors associated with uptake of vaccination against pandemic influenza: a systematic review. Vaccine 2011, 29:6472-6484.
• [21]Ernsting A, Gellert P, Schneider M, Lippke S: A mediator model to predict workplace influenza vaccination behaviour–an application of the health action process approach. Psychol Health 2013, 28:579-592.
• [22]Velan B, Kaplan G, Ziv A, Boyko V, Lerner-Geva L: Major motives in non-acceptance of A/H1N1 flu vaccination: the weight of rational assessment. Vaccine 2011, 29:1173-1179.
• [23]Velan B, Boyko V, Lerner-geva L, Yagar Y, Kaplan G: Individualism, acceptance and differentiation as attitude traits in the public’s response to vaccination. Hum Vaccine Immunother 2012, 8(September):1-11.
• [24]Zimmerman RK, Santibanez TA, Janosky JE, Fine MJ, Raymund M, Wilson SA, Bardella IJ, Medsger AR, Nowalk MP: What affects influenza vaccination rates among older patients? An analysis from inner-city, suburban, rural, and veterans affairs practices. Am J Med 2003, 114:31-38.
• [25]Armstrong K, Berlin M, Schwartz JS, Propert K, Ubel PA: Barriers to influenza immunization in a low-income urban population. Am J Prev Med 2001, 20:21-25.
• [26]Zimmerman RK, Nowalk MP, Bardella IJ, Fine MJ, Janosky JE, Santibanez TA, Wilson SA, Raymund M: Physician and practice factors related to influenza vaccination among the elderly. Am J Prev Med 2004, 26:1-10.
• [27]Cannell C, Henson R: Incentives, Motives, and Response Bias. Ann Econ Soc Meas 1974, 3:307-317.
• [28]Anis E, Kopel E, Singer SR, Kaliner E, Moerman L, Moran-Gilad J, Sofer D, Manor Y, Shulman LM, Mendelson E, Gdalevich M, Lev B, Gamzu R, Grotto I: Insidious reintroduction of wild poliovirus into Israel, 2013. Euro Surveill 2013, 18:1-5.