The potential economic value of influenza vaccination for healthcare workers in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Despite the clinical evidence, influenza vaccination coverage of healthcare workers remains low. To assess the health economic value of implementing an influenza immunization program among healthcare workers (HCW) in University Medical Centers (UMCs) in the Netherlands, a cost-benefit model was developed using a societal perspective. METHODS/PATIENTS: The model was based on a trial performed among all UMCs in the Netherlands that included both hospital staff and patients admitted to the pediatrics and internal medicine departments. The model structure and parameters estimates were based on the trial and complemented with literature research, and the impact of uncertainty explored with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In a base-case scenario without vaccine coverage, influenza-related annual costs were estimated at € 410 815 for an average UMC with 8000 HCWs and an average occupancy during the influenza period of 6000 hospitalized patients. Of these costs, 82% attributed to the HCWs and 18% were patient-related. With a vaccination coverage of 15.47%, the societal program's savings were € 2861 which corresponds to a saving of € 270.53 per extended hospitalization. Univariate sensitivity analyses show that the results are most sensitive to changes in the model parameters vaccine effectiveness in reducing influenza-like illness (ILI) and the vaccination-related costs. CONCLUSION: In addition to the decreased burden of patient morbidity among hospitalized patients, the effects of the hospital immunization program slightly outweigh the economic investments. These outcomes may support healthcare policymakers' recommendations about the influenza vaccination program for healthcare workers.

Planning and process evaluation of a multi-faceted influenza vaccination implementation strategy for health care workers in acute health care settings.

BACKGROUND: Influenza transmitted by health care workers (HCWs) is a potential threat to frail patients in acute health care settings. Therefore, immunizing HCWs against influenza should receive high priority. Despite recommendations of the World Health Organization, vaccine coverage of HCWs remains low in all European countries. This study explores the use of intervention strategies and methods to improve influenza vaccination rates among HCWs in an acute care setting. METHODS: The Intervention Mapping (IM) method was used to systematically develop and implement an intervention strategy aimed at changing influenza vaccination behaviour among HCWs in Dutch University Medical Centres (UMCs). Carried out during the influenza seasons 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, the interventions were then qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated by way of feedback from participating UMCs and the completion of a web-based staff questionnaire in the following spring of each season. RESULTS: The IM method resulted in the development of a transparent influenza vaccination intervention implementation strategy. The intervention strategy was offered to six Dutch UMCs in a randomized in a clustered Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), where three UMCs were chosen for intervention, and three UMCs acted as controls. A further two UMCs elected to have the intervention. The qualitative process evaluation showed that HCWs at four of the five intervention UMCs were responsive to the majority of the 11 relevant behavioural determinants resulting from the needs assessment in their intervention strategy compared with only one of three control UMCs. The quantitative evaluation among a sample of HCWs revealed that of all the developed communication materials, HCWs reported the posters as the most noticeable. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that it is possible to develop a structured implementation strategy for increasing the rate of influenza vaccination by HCWs in acute health care settings. The evaluation also showed that it is impossible to expose all HCWs to all intervention methods (which would have been the best case scenario). Further study is needed to (1) improve HCW exposure to intervention methods; (2) determine the effect of such interventions on vaccine uptake among HCWs; and (3) assess the impact on clinical outcomes among patients when such interventions are enacted.

Contributing factors to influenza vaccine uptake in general hospitals: an explorative management questionnaire study from the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The influenza vaccination rate in hospitals among health care workers in Europe remains low. As there is a lack of research about management factors we assessed factors reported by administrators of general hospitals that are associated with the influenza vaccine uptake among health care workers. METHODS: All 81 general hospitals in the Netherlands were approached to participate in a self-administered questionnaire study. The questionnaire was directed at the hospital administrators. The following factors were addressed: beliefs about the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine, whether the hospital had a written policy on influenza vaccination and how the hospital informed their staff about influenza vaccination. The questionnaire also included questions about mandatory vaccination, whether it was free of charge and how delivered as well as the vaccination campaign costs. The outcome of this one-season survey is the self-reported overall influenza vaccination rate of health care workers. RESULTS: In all, 79 of 81 hospitals that were approached were willing to participate and therefore received a questionnaire. Of these, 42 were returned (response rate 52%). Overall influenza vaccination rate among health care workers in our sample was 17.7% (95% confidence interval: 14.6% to 20.8%). Hospitals in which the administrators agreed with positive statements concerning the influenza vaccination had a slightly higher, but non-significant, vaccine uptake. There was a 9% higher vaccine uptake in hospitals that spent more than €1250,- on the vaccination campaign (24.0% versus 15.0%; 95% confidence interval from 0.7% to 17.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Agreement with positive statements about management factors with regard to influenza vaccination were not associated with the uptake. More economic investments were related with a higher vaccine uptake; the reasons for this should be explored further.

Predictors of seasonal influenza vaccination among healthcare workers in hospitals: a descriptive meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Vaccinating healthcare workers (HCWs) against influenza is one of the most important methods of decreasing influenza transmission among at-risk patients in healthcare facilities. However, despite recommendations, the rate of uptake of influenza vaccine among HCWs remains low. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine the most important predictors of seasonal influenza vaccine acceptance among HCWs in hospitals. METHOD: A literature search of PubMed and Embase resulted in 4586 hits. Screening of the titles, abstracts and full text identified 13 studies eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Based on the crude data, pooled risk ratios (Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios, mhRR) and their 95% CIs were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel analysis to estimate the associations of predictors with influenza vaccination status. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Knowing that the vaccine is effective (mhRR 2.22; 95% CI 1.93 to 2.54), being willing to prevent influenza transmission (mhRR 2.31; 95% CI 1.97 to 2.70), believing that influenza is highly contagious (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.66 to 3.05), believing that influenza prevention is important (mhRR 3.63; 95% CI 2.87 to 4.59) and having a family that is usually vaccinated (RR 2.32; 95% CI 1.64 to 3.28) were statistically significantly associated with a twofold higher vaccine uptake. We therefore recommend targeting these predictors when developing new influenza vaccination implementation strategies for hospital HCWs.

How to develop a program to increase influenza vaccine uptake among workers in health care settings?

BACKGROUND: Apart from direct protection and reduced productivity loss during epidemics, the main reason to immunize healthcare workers (HCWs) against influenza is to provide indirect protection of frail patients through reduced transmission in healthcare settings. Because the vaccine uptake among HCWs remains far below the health objectives, systematic programs are needed to take full advantage of such vaccination. In an earlier report, we showed a mean 9% increase of vaccine uptake among HCWs in nursing homes that implemented a systematic program compared with control homes, with higher rates in those homes that implemented more program elements. Here, we report in detail the process of the development of the implementation program to enable researchers and practitioners to develop intervention programs tailored to their setting. METHODS: We applied the intervention mapping (IM) method to develop a theory- and evidence-based intervention program to change vaccination behaviour among HCWs in nursing homes. RESULTS: After a comprehensive needs assessment, we were able to specify proximal program objectives and selected methods and strategies for inducing behavioural change. By consensus, we decided on planning of three main program components, i.e., an outreach visit to all nursing homes, plenary information meetings, and the appointment of a program coordinator -- preferably a physician -- in each home. Finally, we planned program adoption, implementation, and evaluation. CONCLUSION: The IM methodology resulted in a systematic, comprehensive, and transparent procedure of program development. A potentially effective intervention program to change influenza vaccination behaviour among HCWs was developed, and its impact was assessed in a clustered randomised controlled trial.

Cost-effectiveness of a screening strategy for Q fever among pregnant women in risk areas: a clustered randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In The Netherlands the largest human Q fever outbreak ever reported in the literature is currently ongoing with more than 2300 notified cases in 2009. Pregnant women are particularly at risk as Q fever during pregnancy may cause maternal and obstetric complications. Since the majority of infected pregnant women are asymptomatic, a screening strategy might be of great value to reduce Q fever related complications. We designed a trial to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a screening program for Q fever in pregnant women living in risks areas in The Netherlands. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a clustered randomized controlled trial in which primary care midwife centres in Q fever risk areas are randomized to recruit pregnant women for either the control group or the intervention group. In both groups a blood sample is taken around 20 weeks postmenstrual age. In the intervention group, this sample is immediately analyzed by indirect immunofluorescence assay for detection of IgG and IgM antibodies using a sensitive cut-off level of 1:32. In case of an active Q fever infection, antibiotic treatment is recommended and serological follow up is performed. In the control group, serum is frozen for analysis after delivery. The primary endpoint is a maternal (chronic Q fever or reactivation) or obstetric complication (low birth weight, preterm delivery or fetal death) in Q fever positive women. Secondary aims pertain to the course of infection in pregnant women, diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests used for screening, histo-pathological abnormalities of the placenta of Q fever positive women, side effects of therapy, and costs. The analysis will be according to the intention-to-screen principle, and cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed by comparing the direct and indirect costs between the intervention and control group. DISCUSSION: With this study we aim to provide insight into the balance of risks of undetected and detected Q fever during pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, protocol record NL30340.042.09.