4.4 Article

Explanations for Not Receiving the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine: An Ontario Canada Based Survey

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 506-514

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2017.1312720

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite evidence of the importance of the seasonal influenza vaccine for both individual and population health, only a third of the Ontario population received the vaccine in 2013/2014. The objective of this study was to identify why Ontarians are not getting the seasonal influenza vaccine. Written responses to the question Why didn't you get the seasonal flu vaccine in the last flu season? were deductively analyzed using the Conceptual Model of Vaccine Hesitancy. Inductive coding was also conducted to identify explanations that fall outside of the present model and may be unique to the seasonal influenza vaccine. Data were collected between August and early September, 2014 through a survey in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario. Overall, 91.4% of responses could be explained using the conceptual model and specifically relate to perceived importance of vaccination (46.8%), moral convictions (19.4%), and past experiences with vaccinations services (14.5%). Notably, explanations related to healthcare professional attitudes, risk perceptions and trust, and subjective norms were identified to a much lesser extent than those discussed above. The remaining 8.6% of responses cannot be explained by the model because they do not relate to hesitancy. Our data contribute to the minimal body of Canadian research investigating low uptake of the seasonal flu vaccine, adding to an evidence-base upon which to inform promotional campaigns. Our data also highlight the utility of the Conceptual Model of Vaccine Hesitancy for the design and analysis of research investigating seasonal flu vaccine refusal or delay.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available