4.5 Article

Theory-based predictors of influenza vaccination among pregnant women

期刊

VACCINE
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 213-218

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.10.064

关键词

Health Belief Model; Influenza vaccine; Pregnancy

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority [HHSO100201000029C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Guidelines recommend influenza vaccination for pregnant women, but vaccine uptake in this population is far below the goal set by Healthy People 2020. The purpose of this study was to examine predictors of seasonal influenza vaccination among pregnant women. Methods: Between 2009 and 2012, the Vaccines and Medications in Pregnancy Surveillance System (VAMPSS) conducted a prospective cohort study of influenza vaccine safety among pregnant women in the US and Canada that oversampled vaccinated women. Data for the present paper are from an additional cross-sectional telephone survey completed during the 2010-2011 influenza season. We examined predictors of influenza vaccination, focusing on Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs. Results: We surveyed 199 pregnant women, 81% of whom had received a seasonal influenza vaccine. Vaccination was more common among women who felt more susceptible to influenza (OR = 1.82, 95% CI 1.10-3.01), who perceived greater vaccine effectiveness (OR = 3.92, 95% CI 1.48-10.43), and whose doctors recommended they have flu shots (OR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.27-7.38). Those who perceived greater barriers of influenza vaccination had lower odds of vaccination (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.75). Perceived social norms, anticipated inaction regret, and worry also predicted uptake, though demographic characteristics of respondents did not. Conclusion: The HBM provides a valuable framework for exploring influenza vaccination among pregnant women. Our results suggest several potential areas of intervention to improve vaccination rates. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据