tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Arch Pediatr. 2019 Jan 15. pii: S0929-693X(18)30237-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arcped.2018.11.002. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Parental acceptance of an intranasal vaccine: Example of influenza vaccine.[/h] Marien AG[SUP]1[/SUP], Hochart A[SUP]1[/SUP], Lagr?e M[SUP]1[/SUP], Diallo D[SUP]1[/SUP], Martinot A[SUP]2[/SUP], Dubos F[SUP]3[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Influenza vaccination coverage of children with chronic disease is insufficient in France, although a nasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has been approved.
[h=4]OBJECTIVE:[/h] We aimed to evaluate the acceptance of nasally administered vaccines by parents of children with chronic illness, by comparing LAIV vs. injectable inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) acceptance.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] We performed a retrospective, observational study (December 2014 to April 2015) including parents of all children vaccinated with the LAIV during the 2013-2014 influenza vaccination campaign at our university hospital. It was an opinion survey on the tolerance and acceptance of the LAIV.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] A standardized evaluation form was completed by 67/79 parents of all children who received the LAIV (mean age: 113?56 months; 64% with a chronic respiratory disease). The parents responded that vaccines in general were important (99%) but only 58% of them accepted the injectable route of administration. Of the 48 parents of children who had received both LAIV and IIV in the past, global opinion (P<0.0001) and tolerance (P<0.0001) were better for LAIV. For the future, 81% of parents would prefer LAIV, mainly because of needle absence and/or less painful character, and 18% IIV, mainly because of easier administration or habit.
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h] The better acceptance of a nasally administrated vaccine could increase vaccination coverage in the future for nasal vaccines.
Copyright ? 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Influenza; Nasal administration; Parents? acceptance; Vaccine
PMID: 30658873 DOI: 10.1016/j.arcped.2018.11.002
[h=1]Parental acceptance of an intranasal vaccine: Example of influenza vaccine.[/h] Marien AG[SUP]1[/SUP], Hochart A[SUP]1[/SUP], Lagr?e M[SUP]1[/SUP], Diallo D[SUP]1[/SUP], Martinot A[SUP]2[/SUP], Dubos F[SUP]3[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Influenza vaccination coverage of children with chronic disease is insufficient in France, although a nasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has been approved.
[h=4]OBJECTIVE:[/h] We aimed to evaluate the acceptance of nasally administered vaccines by parents of children with chronic illness, by comparing LAIV vs. injectable inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) acceptance.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] We performed a retrospective, observational study (December 2014 to April 2015) including parents of all children vaccinated with the LAIV during the 2013-2014 influenza vaccination campaign at our university hospital. It was an opinion survey on the tolerance and acceptance of the LAIV.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] A standardized evaluation form was completed by 67/79 parents of all children who received the LAIV (mean age: 113?56 months; 64% with a chronic respiratory disease). The parents responded that vaccines in general were important (99%) but only 58% of them accepted the injectable route of administration. Of the 48 parents of children who had received both LAIV and IIV in the past, global opinion (P<0.0001) and tolerance (P<0.0001) were better for LAIV. For the future, 81% of parents would prefer LAIV, mainly because of needle absence and/or less painful character, and 18% IIV, mainly because of easier administration or habit.
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h] The better acceptance of a nasally administrated vaccine could increase vaccination coverage in the future for nasal vaccines.
Copyright ? 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Influenza; Nasal administration; Parents? acceptance; Vaccine
PMID: 30658873 DOI: 10.1016/j.arcped.2018.11.002