Perceptions of frontline staff regarding data collection methodologies used during the 2009 A H1N1 influenza immunization campaign in Canada

BMC Public Health

Research Article

Stephanie Brien¹  Jennifer A Pereira²  Susan Quach²  Christine L Heidebrecht²  Julie Foisy²  Shelley L Deeks³  Jeffrey C Kwong⁴  Maryse Guay⁵  Sherman D Quan⁶  Julie A Bettinger⁷ 

[1] Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada;Department of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, Toronto, Canada;Department of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, Toronto, Canada;Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;Department of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, Toronto, Canada;Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada;Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;Département des sciences de la santé communautaire, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Canada;Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Montréal, Canada;Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de la Montérégie, Longueuil, Canada;Centre de recherche de l'Hôpital Charles LeMoyne, Longueuil, Canada;University Health Network, Toronto, Canada;University of British Columbia, Vaccine Evaluation Center, BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;

关键词: Influenza;    Data Collection Method;    Public Health Agency;    Paper Method;    Frontline Staff;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-10-796

 received in 2010-08-30, accepted in 2010-12-30,  发布年份 2010

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundDuring the 2009 H1N1 immunization campaign, electronic and hybrid (comprising both electronic and paper components) systems were employed to collect client-level vaccination data in clinics across Canada. Because different systems were used across the country, the 2009 immunization campaign offered an opportunity to study the usability of the various data collection methods.MethodsA convenience sample of clinic staff working in public health agencies and hospitals in 9 provinces/territories across Canada completed a questionnaire in which they indicated their level of agreement with seven statements regarding the usability of the data collection system employed at their vaccination clinic. Questions included overall ease of use, effectiveness of the method utilized, efficiency at completing tasks, comfort using the method, ability to recover from mistakes, ease of learning the method and overall satisfaction with the method. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used to measure responses.ResultsMost respondents (96%) were employed in sites run by public health. Respondents included 186 nurses and 114 administrative staff, among whom 90% and 47%, respectively, used a paper-based method for data collection. Approximately half the respondents had a year or less of experience with immunization-related tasks during seasonal influenza campaigns. Over 90% of all frontline staff found their data collection method easy to use, perceived it to be effective in helping them complete their tasks, felt quick and comfortable using the method, and found the method easy to learn, regardless of whether a hybrid or electronic system was used.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that there may be a greater willingness of frontline immunization staff to adapt to new technologies than previously perceived by decision-makers. The public health community should recognize that usability may not be a barrier to implementing electronic methods for collecting individual-level immunization data.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Foisy et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.