4.5 Article

Influenza vaccination among workers-21 US states, 2013

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages 410-416

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.01.005

Keywords

Immunization

Funding

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHSPO CDC HHS [U58 SO000047, U58 SO000016] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Influenza illnesses can result in missed days at work and societal costs, but influenza vaccination can reduce the risk of disease. Knowledge of vaccination coverage by industry and occupation can help guide prevention efforts and be useful during influenza pandemic planning. Methods: Data from 21 states using the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System industry-occupation module were analyzed. Influenza vaccination coverage was reported by select industry and occupation groups, including health care personnel (HCP) and other occupational groups who may have first priority to receive influenza vaccination during a pandemic (tier 1). The t tests were used to make comparisons between groups. Results: Influenza vaccination coverage varied by industry and occupation, with high coverage among persons in health care industries and occupations. Approximately half of persons classified as tier 1 received influenza vaccination, and vaccination coverage among tier 1 and HCP groups varied widely by state. Conclusions: This report points to the particular industries and occupations where improvement in influenza vaccination coverage is needed. Prior to a pandemic event, more specificity on occupational codes to define exact industries and occupations in each tier group would be beneficial in implementing pandemic influenza vaccination programs and monitoring the success of these programs. (C) 2017 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available