4.7 Article

No intention to comply with influenza and pneumococcal vaccination: Behavioural determinants among smokers and non-smokers

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 45, Issue 5, Pages 380-385

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.009

Keywords

smoking; vaccination; compliance; behaviour; prevention; influenza; pneumococcal disease; health education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Smoking increases the risk for influenza and pneumococcal disease, but vaccination uptake is lower among smokers than nonsmokers. We therefore aimed to determine reasons for not complying with vaccination among smokers and non-smokers. Method. In 2005 a self-administered questionnaire was sent to a random sample of Dutch patients (n=4,000) assessing medical, social and behavioural determinants. Independent factors associated with not complying with influenza and pneumococcal vaccination among smokers and non-smokers were assessed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results. In all, 1,725 of 4,000 patients returned the questionnaire (response rate: 43%), 426 (25%) were smokers. Among smokers self-reported flu vaccine uptake was 42% and among non-smokers 52% among both only 0,2% received both vaccines. Most important predictors of not complying in smokers and non-smokers were patient's beliefs not to be susceptible to disease (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (Cl): 2.0, 8.0 and OR 2.8, CI: 2.0, 3.9), finding it difficult to go to the GP for vaccination (OR 2.5, CI: 1.3, 4.8 and OR 1.8, CI: 1.3, 2.6) and being against vaccination (OR 2.4 CI: 1.3, 4.4 and OR 1.8, CI: 1.3, 2.6), respectively. Conclusion. There are no substantial differences in determinants associated with not complying with influenza and pneumococcal vaccination between smokers and non-smokers but there is a trend towards stronger associations in smokers. (c) 2007 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available