ABSTRACT
Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a brief intervention in increasing influenza vaccination coverage compared with the usual advice in people who refuse it, and to record the main reasons for refusing to be vaccinated. Method: A cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in which the study population was individuals with high risk factors who initially had refused to be vaccinated against influenza. Professionals (doctors and nurses) who voluntarily accepted to participate were assigned randomly to the intervention group (brief intervention) and the control group (usual advice). Results: 57 professionals recruited 524 people who had previously declined the influenza vaccination (271 in the control group and 253 in the intervention group). Brief intervention showed its effectiveness with an odds ratio of 2.48 (1.61-3.82; p < 0.001), in individuals aged 60 or over, both healthy or with risk factors. The most frequent reasons for rejection of vaccination were the belief that there was no risk of getting sick (53.0%) and the fear of the side effects (33.3%). (AU)
Objetivo: Determinar la efectividad del consejo breve para la vacunación antigripal frente al consejo habitual en personas que la rechazan, y conocer los principales motivos de rechazo. Método: Se realizó un ensayo clínico aleatorizado por clusters, en el que la población de estudio eran personas con factores de riesgo y que inicialmente rechazaban vacunarse. Los/las profesionales (médicos/as y enfermeros/as) que aceptaron participar se distribuyeron aleatoriamente en un grupo de intervención (consejo breve) y un grupo de control (consejo habitual). Resultados: Cincuenta y siete profesionales reclutaron 524 personas que rechazaron la vacunación (271 en el grupo control y 253 en el grupo de intervención). El consejo breve demostró su efectividad, con una odds ratio de 2,48 (1,61-3,82; p < 0.001), en las personas de 60 años o más, sanos o con factores de riesgo. Los principales motivos para no vacunarse fueron la creencia de no estar en riesgo de enfermar (53,0%) y el miedo a los efectos secundarios (33,3%). Conclusiones: El consejo breve es una herramienta efectiva para mejorar las coberturas de vacunación en personas que la rechazan inicialmente. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Influenza Vaccines , Primary Health Care , Directive Counseling , Vaccination Coverage , Health Education , Vaccination RefusalABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a brief intervention in increasing influenza vaccination coverage compared with the usual advice in people who refuse it, and to record the main reasons for refusing to be vaccinated. METHOD: A cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in which the study population was individuals with high risk factors who initially had refused to be vaccinated against influenza. Professionals (doctors and nurses) who voluntarily accepted to participate were assigned randomly to the intervention group (brief intervention) and the control group (usual advice). RESULTS: 57 professionals recruited 524 people who had previously declined the influenza vaccination (271 in the control group and 253 in the intervention group). Brief intervention showed its effectiveness with an odds ratio of 2.48 (1.61-3.82; p<0.001), in individuals aged 60 or over, both healthy or with risk factors. The most frequent reasons for rejection of vaccination were the belief that there was no risk of getting sick (53.0%) and the fear of the side effects (33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Brief intervention is an effective tool in improving vaccination coverage in people who have initially rejected it.
Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Crisis Intervention , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Primary Health Care , VaccinationABSTRACT
No disponible
