tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Vaccine. 2016 Feb 5. pii: S0264-410X(16)00121-3. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.01.058. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Trends in reasons for non-receipt of influenza vaccination during pregnancy in Georgia, 2004-2011.[/h] Chamberlain AT[SUP]1[/SUP], Berkelman RL[SUP]2[/SUP], Ault KA[SUP]3[/SUP], Rosenberg ES[SUP]4[/SUP], Orenstein WA[SUP]5[/SUP], Omer SB[SUP]6[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Considerable research has identified barriers to antenatal influenza vaccination, yet no research has explored temporal trends in reasons for non-receipt.
[h=4]PURPOSE:[/h] To examine trends in reasons for non-receipt of influenza vaccination during pregnancy.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] Serial cross-sectional analyses using 8 years of Georgia Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring Survey (PRAMS) data were conducted. Weighted logistic regression was used to examine trends in the prevalence of citing reasons for non-receipt over time.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Between 2004 and 2011, 8300 women reported no influenza vaccination during or immediately before pregnancy. Proportions of women citing "doctor didn't mention vaccination," "in first trimester during influenza season," and "not pregnant during influenza season" decreased significantly over time (Doctor didn't mention: 48.0% vs. 27.1%, test for trend p<0.001; in first trimester: 26.8% vs. 16.3%, test for trend p<0.001; not influenza season: 24.2% vs. 12.7%, test for trend p=0.001). Safety concerns increased over 2004 proportions in 2010 (concern about side effects for me: 40.2% vs. 28.5%, prevalence ratio (PR): 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16, 1.71; concern about harming my baby: 38.9% vs. 31.0%, PR=1.26, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.53) and 2011 (concern about side effects for me: 39.0% vs. 28.5%, PR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.65; concern about harming my baby: 38.8% vs. 31.0%, PR=1.25, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.50). Following the 2009/2010 H1N1 pandemic, more Hispanic women cited concern about vaccination harming their baby than other women; in 2011, their concern remained elevated relative to non-Hispanic white women (63% vs. 35%; adjusted PR=1.79, 95% CI: 1.23, 2.61).
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h] Examining trends in reasons for non-receipt of antenatal influenza vaccination can reflect successes related to vaccine promotion and areas for improvement. By highlighting differential impacts of the 2009/2010 H1N1 pandemic, we reveal opportunities for additional research on tailoring vaccine promotion efforts to specific types of women.
Copyright ? 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Antenatal; H1N1 pandemic; Influenza; Non-receipt; Pregnancy; Trends; Vaccination
PMID: 26854909 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
[h=1]Trends in reasons for non-receipt of influenza vaccination during pregnancy in Georgia, 2004-2011.[/h] Chamberlain AT[SUP]1[/SUP], Berkelman RL[SUP]2[/SUP], Ault KA[SUP]3[/SUP], Rosenberg ES[SUP]4[/SUP], Orenstein WA[SUP]5[/SUP], Omer SB[SUP]6[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Considerable research has identified barriers to antenatal influenza vaccination, yet no research has explored temporal trends in reasons for non-receipt.
[h=4]PURPOSE:[/h] To examine trends in reasons for non-receipt of influenza vaccination during pregnancy.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] Serial cross-sectional analyses using 8 years of Georgia Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring Survey (PRAMS) data were conducted. Weighted logistic regression was used to examine trends in the prevalence of citing reasons for non-receipt over time.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Between 2004 and 2011, 8300 women reported no influenza vaccination during or immediately before pregnancy. Proportions of women citing "doctor didn't mention vaccination," "in first trimester during influenza season," and "not pregnant during influenza season" decreased significantly over time (Doctor didn't mention: 48.0% vs. 27.1%, test for trend p<0.001; in first trimester: 26.8% vs. 16.3%, test for trend p<0.001; not influenza season: 24.2% vs. 12.7%, test for trend p=0.001). Safety concerns increased over 2004 proportions in 2010 (concern about side effects for me: 40.2% vs. 28.5%, prevalence ratio (PR): 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16, 1.71; concern about harming my baby: 38.9% vs. 31.0%, PR=1.26, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.53) and 2011 (concern about side effects for me: 39.0% vs. 28.5%, PR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.65; concern about harming my baby: 38.8% vs. 31.0%, PR=1.25, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.50). Following the 2009/2010 H1N1 pandemic, more Hispanic women cited concern about vaccination harming their baby than other women; in 2011, their concern remained elevated relative to non-Hispanic white women (63% vs. 35%; adjusted PR=1.79, 95% CI: 1.23, 2.61).
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h] Examining trends in reasons for non-receipt of antenatal influenza vaccination can reflect successes related to vaccine promotion and areas for improvement. By highlighting differential impacts of the 2009/2010 H1N1 pandemic, we reveal opportunities for additional research on tailoring vaccine promotion efforts to specific types of women.
Copyright ? 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Antenatal; H1N1 pandemic; Influenza; Non-receipt; Pregnancy; Trends; Vaccination
PMID: 26854909 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]