The main objectives of our study were to explore reasons for seasonal influenza vaccine acceptance and declination in employees of a large integrated healthcare system and to identify underlying constructs that influence acceptance versus declination. Secondary objectives were to determine whether vaccine acceptance varied by hospital location and to identify facility-level measures that explained variability.

A national health promotion survey of employees was conducted that included items on vaccination in the 2009-2010 influenza season. The survey was administered with two other institutional surveys in a stratified fashion: approximately 40% of participating employees were randomly assigned to complete the health promotion survey.

National single-payer healthcare system with 152 hospitals.

Employees of the healthcare system in 2010 who responded to the survey.

Factor analysis was used to identify underlying constructs that influenced vaccine acceptance versus declination. Mean factor scores were examined in relation to demographic characteristics and occupation. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to determine whether vaccine acceptance varied by location and to identify facility-level measures that explained variability.

Four factors were identified related to vaccine declination and were labeled as (1) “don't care,” (2) “don't want,” (3) “don't believe,” and (4) “don't know.” Significant differences in mean factor scores existed by demographic characteristics and occupation. Vaccine acceptance varied by location, and vaccination rates in the previous year were an important facility-level predictor.

Results should guide interventions that tailor messages on the basis of particular reasons for declination. Occupation-specific and culturally appropriate messaging should be considered. Continued efforts will be taken to better understand how workplace context influences vaccine acceptance.

To better understand work-site–based programs for influenza vaccination.

Self-administered, mailed questionnaire.

Healthcare and non-healthcare companies.

Random sample of 2,000 members of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses.

The response rate was 55%, and 88% of the respondents were employed by companies sponsoring work-site influenza vaccination. Thirty-two percent of respondents worked for healthcare and healthcare-related services companies. Healthcare companies were more likely to sponsor worksite-based vaccination (94% vs 85%; P < .0001) compared with non-healthcare companies. Healthcare companies were also more likely to encourage vaccination of high-risk employees (70% vs 55%; P < .0001) and cover its cost (86% vs 61%; P < .0001). Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with highly successful vaccination. Being a healthcare-related company (OR, 2.1; CI95 1.4–3.2; P < .0001), employers covering the vaccination cost (OR, 3.1; CI95, 1.4–6.6; P = .004), having more experience with work-site vaccination (OR, 1.6; CI95, 1.0–2.4; P = .036), and management encouraging vaccination (OR, 2.6; CI95, 1.4–4.9; P = .002) were associated with highly successful programs.

Most of the occupational health nurses surveyed work for employers sponsoring work-site vaccination, and 32% were employed by healthcare and related services companies. Healthcare companies were more likely to sponsor worksite–based vaccination and to vaccinate most of their employees; however, only 18% had vaccination rates higher than 50%. Strategies need to be developed to increase vaccination rates so that benefits of vaccination can be realized by employers and employees.

To examine influenza vaccination status and predictors for vaccine receipt among healthcare workers (HCWs)caring for patients with spinal cord injuries and disorders.

Cross-sectional, nationwide anonymous survey.

Twenty-three Veterans Affairs spinal cord injury centers.

One thousand five hundred fifty-six HCWs.

The primary outcome was staff vaccination status. Independent variables included staff demographic and employment characteristics, health status, attitudes and beliefs about the vaccine, and implications for its use.

The staff vaccination rate was 51%. Leading motivators of vaccine receipt were self-protection (77%) and patient protection (49%). The most common reasons for nonreceipt were concerns about side effects (49%), preventive quality (20%), and inconvenience (14%). Logistic regression results suggested that age of 50 years or older (OR, 1.47; P = .021), male gender (OR, 2.50; P < .001), strong belief in vaccine effectiveness (OR, 19.03; P = .008), and importance of HCW vaccination (OR, 20.50; P = .005) significantly increased the probability of vaccination. Recommending the vaccine to coworkers, patients, or patients' families was also associated with HCW vaccination (OR, 3.20; P < .001). Providers who did not believe the vaccine was protective (P < .001) or effective P < .001) were less likely to recommend it to patients.

Strategies to increase vaccination rates among HCWs should address concerns about side effects, effectiveness, and protective value of the vaccine and access to it. The impact of provider recommendations should be stressed. Vaccination and subsequent prevention of illness may limit morbidity and mortality, thus benefiting HCWs, healthcare facilities, and patients.

To assess factors associated with influenza vaccination of healthcare workers.

Cross-sectional survey.

University-affiliated Veterans' Affairs medical center.

Staff physicians and nurses employed by the medical center.

A mailed, self-administered questionnaire.

The response rate was 38.0%. The mean age of the respondents was 43.6 years, 71.5% were females, and 26.2% were physicians. Nearly all of the practitioners had daily or weekly contact with elderly or high-risk patients. The influenza vaccination rate of the respondents was 61.2%. More than 50% of vaccine recipients indicated that avoiding illness, protecting patients, and being able to receive the vaccine conveniently and free of charge all were very important factors influencing their decisions to receive the vaccine. Avoiding illness was rated the most important factor by 58.8% of vaccine recipients. Among vaccine nonrecipients, concern about side effects was identified as a very important factor by 36.2% and as the most important factor by 30.9%.

Vaccine recipients were significantly more likely than were vaccine nonrecipients to indicate that influenza and its complications are very serious for high-risk patients. They also were more likely to report that the vaccine is very effective, that influenza vaccination is uncommonly associated with side effects, that healthcare workers' risk for contracting influenza is higher than the general public's risk, and that it is very important for healthcare workers to receive the vaccine to decrease risk for transmission to high-risk patients. After stepwise logistic regression, variables independently associated with receipt of vaccine were age, prior receipt of vaccine, being a physician, considering the vaccine to be very effective, believing that systemic side effects are uncommon, and indicating that it is very important for healthcare workers to receive vaccine for the protection of their patients.

Many healthcare workers fail to receive influenza vaccine each year. Strategies to improve immunization levels should address concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, barriers to vaccination including inconvenience and cost, and the reasons for targeting healthcare workers.