4.6 Article

Project VIVA: A multilevel community-based intervention to increase influenza vaccination rates among hard-to-reach populations in New York City

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 98, 期 7, 页码 1314-1321

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.119586

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA017004, R01 DA017004] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. We sought to determine whether the work of a community-based participatory research partnership increased interest in influenza vaccination among hard-to-reach individuals in urban settings. Methods. A partnership of researchers and community members carried out interventions for increasing acceptance of influenza vaccination in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods, focusing on hard-to-reach populations (e.g., substance abusers, immigrants, elderly, sex workers, and homeless persons) in East Harlem and the Bronx in New York City. Activities targeted the individual, community organization, and neighborhood levels and included dissemination of information, presentations at meetings, and provision of street-based and door-to-door vaccination during 2 influenza vaccine seasons. Participants were recruited via multiple modalities. Multivariable analyses were performed to compare interest in receiving vaccination pre- and postintervention. Results. There was increased interest in receiving the influenza vaccine postintervention (P <.01). Being a member of a hard-to-reach population (P=.03), having ever received an influenza vaccine (P <.01), and being in a priority group for vaccination (P <.01) were also associated with greater interest in receiving the vaccine. Conclusions. Targeting underserved neighborhoods through a multilevel community-based participatory research intervention significantly increased interest in influenza vaccination, particularly among hard-to-reach populations. Such interventions hold promise for increasing vaccination rates annually and in pandemic situations.

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

4.6
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