Summary: In June 1998, a questionnaire was sent to evaluate the influenza vaccination practices in Switzerland: 429 health care institutions were to assess the level of influenza vaccination and the coverage of specific groups; each institution was required to specify whether vaccination coverage was known precisely (based on recorded data) or estimated. The response rate was 42.4%. Among institutions which responded, the mean accurate vaccination coverage rate for all patients was 40% and the estimated rate was 29%; these rates were slightly higher for people older than 65 years. For the entire staff, the accurate vaccination rate was 16% (14% estimated) whilst for the medical staff, the mean coverage was higher at 30% (measured) and 16% (estimated). The mean vaccination rate for patients and residents was 59% in the French speaking region of Switzerland, 54% in the Italian speaking canton, but only 37% in the German speaking region. The same ranking was found for vaccination coverage of medical staff: 21% in the French speaking region, 15% in the Italian speaking canton, and 13% in German speaking areas. These results suggest that cultural differences could play an important role in the attitudes and behaviour of the population regarding influenza vaccination programmes among the linguistic regions in Switzerlan

Ammon, Catherine

RERO DOC Digital Library

Soz.- Prfiventivmed. 45 (2000) 182-187 0303-8408/00/040182-06 $1.50 + 0.20/0 9 Birkhfiuser Verlag, Basel, 2000 Catherine E. Ammon Institute of social and preventive medicine, University of Geneva A survey of institutional influenza vaccination in Switzerland In Switzerland, the mortality rate due to influenza infection has been estimated at more than 1000 deaths ayear based on death certifi- cates 1,2. The average mortality rate due to influenza is underreported and it might be assumed to be four times higher than the official death declarations [Claude Hannoun, personal communication] as the death certificates document only the major causes of death and not any underlying conditions 3 Influenza vaccination has been shown to be efficacious and effi- cient in preventing infection in the population, providing considerable financial savings due to fewer epi- sodes of upper respiratory tract infection and fewer visits to the physician. For high risk groups, the vaccination reduces the frequency of hospitalizations and the mor- tality 4-6. Nevertheless, there is no uniformity in the definitions of risk groups and recommendations onwho should receive the vaccine vary between different countries 7.Within Western Europe, there are differences in the recommenda- tions for the elderlyT; in Belgium it is recommended for people over 60 years, in Switzerland for those over 65 years, in France for those more than 70 years of age whereas the United Kingdom decided for the first time in 1998 to recommend vaccination for elderly people who are more than 75 years old 8. In all countries there are recommenda- tions to vaccinate persons at high risk for influenza such as those with chronic heart, lung or kidney dis- ease, diabetes or other serious ill- nesses 9.Within Western Europe, Switzer- land has one of the lowest influenza vaccination coverage rates with an estimated 75 doses of vaccine dis- tributed per 1000 total population in 1997, and 100 doses in 1998. This figure does not mean that all doses of vaccine distributed are actually administered, nor does it mean that all doses given are received by persons for whom vaccination is specifically recommended. The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (SFOPH) publishes annual 182 Soz T- Pr~ventivmed; 2008! 45: 182-187 recommendations on the vaccina- tion against influenza 1. However, the health authorities of the 23 can- tons are free to organize and pro- mote vaccination programmes lo- cally. This leads to an inconsistent promotion within the country. In 1997/98, influenza vaccination was recommended forindividuals older than 65 years, for adults and child- ren with cardiac or pulmonary pathologies, for residents of homes and health institutions, and for patients with chronic diseases; for all persons in these groups the medical insurance companies gua- rantee reimbursement for the cost of vaccination. The medical staff and personnel of health care in- stitutions as well as family and contacts of individuals at risk are also recommended for vaccination but no reimbursement is provided by the insurance companies. This study was conducted in June 1998 to collect information on influenza vaccination coverage and promotion practices. Another objective was to discover which promotional support would be most effective in encouraging the application of influenza vaccina- tion within health care institutions (not shown here). Material and Methods Institutions In June 1998 a questionnaire was sent o 429 Swiss health care institu- tions. They were selected through aprivate association which provides statistical and accounting services to the major health care providers in the country. All members of this association were contacted for the survey. This systematic samp- ling included university and gene- ral hospitals (51%), maternity and children's hospitals (8 %), rehabili- tation clinics (10%), retirement and nursing homes (21%) and psy- chiatric clinics (10%) (Table 1). These enrolled institutions account for 15% (429/2882) of all health care institutions in Switzerland. Questionnaire The questionnaire was sent to each institution itself, not to a specific addressee. It was first written in French and then translated into German and Italian. Overall, 299 institutions received the question- naire in German, 101 in French and 29 in Italian. The analysis eparates the data collected in the three lin- guistic regions. The cut-off time for reply was one month, no reminders were issued. The first part of the questionnaire concerned the level of influenza vaccination within the institution with emphasis on the vaccination coverage within specified groups (total residents/patients; patients older than 65 years; all staff, in- cluding paramedical nd adminis- trative as well as technical staff, and medical staff alone). The re- spondent was requested to specify whether vaccination coverage had been measured using records of doses administered, or whether a less precise method of estimation had been used. The second part of the question- naire dealt with specific actions to promote influenza vaccination within an institution. The respon- dent's opinions on the most useful means and support required to promote influenza vaccination in case of a national campaign, and who should play the principal role in a vaccination programme were also requested (results not shown here). The questionnaire was pilot- tested on a small group of profes- sionals selected from public and private health institutions. Type of institution Hospital with > 124 beds Psychiatric linic C Retirement home, geriatric linic Total 87 45 44 22 4I 20 92 37 132 48 33 10 429 182 Table 1. Health institutions involved in the survey and response rates, Switzerland, 1998 (ranked by response rate). 183 i! 84 Statistics The analysis of data was performed at the Institute of Social and Pre- ventive Medicine in Geneva using SPSS software version 6.0 for Win- dows. Data is summarized using means and ranges. Means were cal- culated without weighting by size of institution. Results 429 (14.9%) of the existing 2882 Swiss health care institutions were included in this survey. The re- sponse rate was 42.4% (182/429) and varied according to the type of institution (Table 1). Respondents from all institutions were asked to provide the precise rate of vaccination coverage of the different risk groups, if known. Otherwise, they were asked to provide an estimate or to state that no reply was possible (Table 2). This information was obtained for each or the four groups: all pa- tients/residents; elderly residents; all institution staff; and medical staff. Overall, 40% of all insti- tutions were unable to provide any data on the vaccination rates of their patients, residents or em- ployees. The precise vaccination coverage rates for all patients and residents ranged from 0 to 100% with a mean of 40 %; where the rate was estimated the mean was 29% (Table 3). These rates were slightly higher for elderly people (47% known and 37 % estimated cover- age). With regard to the entire in- stitution staff, the mean precisely known immunization rate was 16 % (0-100%) but only 14% (0-80%) where estimated. These numbers were slightly higher for medical staff, where 30% (0-100%) were known to have been vaccinated against influenza and 16% (0- 80 %) were estimated to have been vaccinated. Table 2. Proportion of health institutions providing measured, estimated or no data on vaccination coverage of risk groups (N = 182), Switzerland, 1998. Table 3. Measured and estimated vaccination coverage rate (mean and range) of risk groups, Switzerland, 1998. Table 4. Vaccination coverage (mean and range) for institution returning measured data, for two risk groups, according to the linguistic regions of Switzerland, 1998. 184 Soz.- Prgventivrned. 2000; 45:: 182-187 The responses were also evaluated according to the three major lingu- istic regions of Switzerland (Table 4). The mean vaccination rate for patients and residents was highest in the French speaking region (59%), and almost as high as in the Italian speaking canton (54 %), whereas in the German speaking region it was lower (37 %). Similar findings were obtained for vaccina- tion coverage of the medical staff: 21% in the French speaking re- gion, 15 % in the Italian speaking canton and 13% in the German speaking region. Discussion The relatively low response rate of 42.4 % may be explained by the facts that no reminder was sent, questionnaires were sent outside the vaccination period, shortly before a holiday period, and with- out a specific addressee. No in- formation is available concerning the non-respondents. The lower response rates in the children's and mothercare clinics may be due to the fact that the management ofsuch institutions has little concern about this vaccination ~,9. The high response rates in large hospitals and psychiatric linics may reflect a concern with influenza vaccina- tion due to the presence in these institutions of patients of all risk groups. The mean estimated rates for vac- cination coverage were generally lower than the precisely known rates. The differences varied be- tween 14% for the medical staff, 11% for the residents and 10% for the elderly; but this was not true for the entire staff where the mean estimated rate was only 2 % lower than the measured rates (Table 3). This difference may be related to a reputation of useless- ness and lack of efficiency of the influenza vaccination within the medical institutional environment. The highest precisely known mean vaccination rates were found for the elderly (47%) and the residents- patients (40%). The SFOPH re- commends vaccination for these groups, while the staff is eligible for vaccination but not con- sidered a risk group. The cost of the vaccine is not reimbursed by the medical insurance for the employees of health institutions, a fact which might contribute to the underestimation of the coverage as well as the low vaccination rate. Nevertheless, these rates are low in comparison with studies in other countries. Nichol found that im- munization rates in the United States among high risk patients can be increased from 58% to 84% with a good vaccination program 10. In comparison, vaccination cover- age for the elderly with high risk conditions discharged from hos- pitals is reported to be at 68 % in the United Kingdom 11 and about 70 % in France 12. For patients and residents, the mean rates were very low, particularly as it has been shown that the vaccina- tion of health care workers had important beneficial effects on pa- tient mortality and frequency of influenza-like illness 13. Other stu- dies confirmed that the vaccination of health workers reduces febrile respiratory illness and reported days of work absence 14, is With regard to the staff, either all employees or only medical per- sonnel, the measured and estimat- ed rates for influenza vaccination coverage were much lower than for the other groups, potentially reflect- ing little interest in protecting the staff or a possible resistance toward this preventive measure. The results also demonstrate hat the perception of public health measures differs between the three linguistic regions. The differences among the three regions appeared strongly also in the Swiss Health Survey. For the total population the number of persons vaccinated within the last two years preceding the survey (vaccinated in 1996 and/or 1997) are 17.8% in the French speaking area, 11.2% in the Italian speaking canton, and 9.7% for German speaking Swit- zerland 16. The 1996 coverage in Switzerland is 6.1%, for compari- son in the neighbouring countries based on the number of sold doses, the rates are 15.0 % for Italy, 13.4 % for France, 9.2 % for Germany and 6.1% for Austria [David Fedson, Fred Ambrosch, personal commu- nication]. One can suggest that this may be due to a tendency for a similar identity as well as cultural influence from the neighbouring country speaking the same langu- age. France has been very active in promoting influenza vaccination for nearly 20 years and the impact of this media campaign has been felt throughout the French speak- ing part of Switzerland. Germany and Austria show a low vaccination coverage, and some German speak- ing cantons are the home for anti- vaccination activist movements; especially the Swiss Germans eem to favour more natural preventive measures and tend to reject im- munisations. The coverage rate for the Italian speaking canton can- not be compared with the Italian national rate, unfortunately specif- ic data for the Italian autonomous regions bordering Ticino are not available. Conclusion This study has shown that in Switzerland, where no national influenza vaccination programme exists, knowledge of health institu- tions on vaccination rates either of their patients or their employees i  sparse and uncertain. When pre- cisely known vaccination coverage mean rates for the patients-resi- dents, the elderly and the medical staff are higher than the rates given when they are estimated. Overall, Swiss immunization rates are generally well below those of other European countries and the 185 United States. The SFOPH recom- mends the vaccination for specific risk groups but each canton is free to decide whether to organize the promotion locally. Cultural dif- ferences appear to play an im- portant role with regard to the perception of influenza vaccination programmes and their promotion and monitoring, as shown by the differences in immunization rates in the French, Italian and German speaking regions. The question arises whether vaccination pro- grammes should continue to be delegated to the cantons but with an increased assistance and sup- port by the federal health author- ities, or be better conducted en- tirely by the SFOPH with a pro- motion adapted to the local sen- sibilities and cultural identities within the country. Both options would increase protection against influenza and achieve a better cultural balance in the promotion of this important preventive inter- vention. References 1 Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Recommandations pour la pr6vention de la grippe. Diagnostic et pr6vention. Maladies infectieu- ses. Supplementum XIII. August 1996. Bern: SFOPH, 1996. 2 Egger M, Jennings S, Spuhler T, Zimrnermann HP,, Paccaud E So- 'maini B. Sterblichkeit w~ihrend Grippeepidemien i  der Schweiz 1969-1985. Schweiz Med Wochen- schr 1989; 119: 434-9. 3 Carrat F, Valleron A-J. Influenza mortality among the elderly in France, 1980-90: how many deaths may have been avoided through vaccination? J Epidemiol Com- munity Health 1995; 49: 419-25. 4 Nichol KL, Margolis KL, Wuoren- rna J, Von Sternberg T. The efficacy and cost effectiveness of vaccina- tion against influenza mong elder- 186 Soz.- P~vent vmed 2000; 45 182- t 87 ! !!i ly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 778-84. 5 Fedson DS, WajdaA, NicolP, Ham- mond GW, Kaiser DL, Roos LL. Clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccination in Manitoba. JAMA 1993; 270: 1956-61. 6 Puig-Barbergl J, Marquez-CalderOn S, Masoliver-Fores A, et al. Re- duction in hospital admissions for pneumonia n non-institutionalised elderly people as a result of in- fluenza vaccination: a case-control study in Spain. J Epidemiol Com- munity Health 1997; 51: 526-30. 7 Fedson DS, Hirota Y, Shin H-K, et al. Influenza vaccination in 22 developed countries: an update to 1995. Vaccine 1997; 15: 1506-11. 8 PHLS, Communicable Disease Sur- veillance Centre. Influenza immu- nisation to include all those aged 75 years and over. CDR 1998; 8: 297-300. 9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention and control of influenza. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on immu- nization practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1997; 46(RR-9): 1-21. 10 Nichol KL. Ten-year durability and success of an organized program to increase influenza nd pneumo- coccal vaccination rates among high-risk adults. Am J Med 1998; 105: 385-92. 11 Willis J, Watkins J. Influenza vacci- nation policy and high risk subjects. Targeting and delivery should re- main in general practice. BMJ 1998; 317: 349. 12 Hannoun C. Le vaccin antigrippal d'aujourd'hui etdemain. Virologic 1997; 1: 121-31. 13 Potter J, Stott D J, Roberts MA, et al. Influenza vaccination of health care workers in long-term-care hos- pitals reduces the mortality of elderly patients. J Infect Dis 1997; 175: 1-6. 14 Wilde J, McMillan J, Serwint J, Butta J, O'Riordan MA, Steinhoff M. Effectiveness of influenza vac- cine in health care profesionals. Arandomized trial. JAMA 1999; 281: 908-13. 15 Niehol KL, Lind A, Margolis KL, et al. The effectiveness of vaccina- tion against influenza in healthy, working adults. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 889-93. 16 Swiss Federal Office of Statistics. Swiss Health Survey. Neuchgtel: SFOS 1999. Acknowledgements The study was carried out on behalf of the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine of Geneva nd funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. The author thanks Dr Hans C. Matter from the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, Dr Beate Heym and Dr James Robertson for critical reading of the manuscript, and Dr Dennis Chanter from Quintiles for assistance with the statistics. Address for correspondence Catherine Ammon, MPH Swiss Federal Office of Public Health Viral Diseases and Sentinella Systems R O. Box CH-3003 Bern Tel.: +4131 323 13 39 Fax: +4131 323 87 95 catherine.ammon@bag.admin.ch 187 

A survey of institutional influenza vaccination in Switzerland

http://doc.rero.ch/record/313325/files/38_2005_Article_BF01359915.pdf

A survey of institutional influenza vaccination in Switzerland

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

RERO DOC Digital Library