4.5 Article

Compliance with immunization and a biological risk assessment of health care workers as part of an occupational health surveillance program: The experience of a university hospital in southern Italy

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 368-374

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.09.024

关键词

Health care worker vaccination; Vaccination hesitancy; Occupational medical examination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The active immunization of health care workers (HCWs) is a primary measure to prevent nosocomial infection; despite this, vaccine coverage among HCWs in most countries is low. To increase vaccine coverage in the health care setting, the hygiene and occupational medicine departments of Bari Policlinico General University-Hospital implemented a vaccination procedure. This operative procedure requires that during the occupational medical examination, all employees are evaluated for immunity/susceptibility to vaccine-preventable diseases, with vaccination offered to those determined to be susceptible. Methods: The study sample comprised HCWs who attended the biological risk assessment program from December 2017 to January 2019 (n = 449). Results: Susceptibility was higher for hepatitis B virus (23%), followed by rubella (11%), varicella (9%), mumps (8%), and measles (7%). The seroconversion rate after the administration of booster dose(s) was >80% for all vaccines. Overall, 15% of the HCWs refused the offered vaccine(s), and the main determinants of vaccination compliance were younger age (P < .0001) and being a physician (P < .05). Discussion: Despite the several recommendations and campaigns to promote vaccinations, achieving high immunization rates among HCWs is still a challenge. Conclusions: In this scenario, public health institutions have to choose between the enforcement of the promotion or the adoption of a mandatory policy. (C) 2019 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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