A Nicoll

Factors associated with uptake of vaccination against pandemic influenza: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND In June 2009 a global influenza pandemic was declared by the World Health Organisation. A vaccination programme against H1N1 influenza was introduced in many countries from September 2009, but there was low uptake in both the general population and health professionals in many, though not all, countries. PURPOSE To examine the psychological and demographic factors associated with uptake of vaccination during the 2009 pandemic. METHOD A systematic literature review searching Web of Science and PubMed databases up to 24 January 2011. RESULTS 37 articles met the study inclusion criteria. Using the framework of Protection Motivation Theory the review found that both the degree of threat experienced in the 2009 pandemic influenza outbreak and perceptions of vaccination as an effective coping strategy were associated with stronger intentions and higher uptake of vaccination. Appraisal of threat resulted from both believing oneself to be at risk from developing H1N1 influenza and concern and worry about the disease. Appraisal of coping resulted from concerns about the safety of the vaccine and its side effects. There was evidence of an influence of social pressure in that people who thought that others wanted them to be vaccinated were more likely to do so and people getting their information about vaccination from official health sources being more likely to be vaccinated than those relying on unofficial sources. There was also a strong influence of past behaviour, with those having been vaccinated in the past against seasonal influenza being more likely to be vaccinated against pandemic influenza. Demographic factors associated with higher intentions and uptake of vaccination were: older age, male gender, being from an ethnic minority and, for health professionals, being a doctor. DISCUSSION Interventions designed to increase vaccination rates could be developed and implemented in advance of a pandemic. Strategies to improve uptake of vaccination include interventions which highlight the risk posed by pandemic influenza while simultaneously offering tactics to ameliorate this risk (e.g. vaccination). Perceived concerns about vaccination can be tackled by reducing the omission bias (a perception that harm caused by action is worse than harm caused by inaction). In addition, interventions to increase seasonal influenza vaccination in advance of a future pandemic may be an effective strategy.

Seasonal influenza immunisation in Europe. Overview of recommendations and vaccination coverage for three seasons: pre-pandemic (2008/09), pandemic (2009/10) and post-pandemic (2010/11).

Since 2008, annual surveys of influenza vaccination policies, practices and coverage have been undertaken in 29 European Union (EU)/ European Economic Area (EEA) countries. After 2009, this monitored the impact of European Council recommendation to increase vaccination coverage to 75% among risk groups. This paper summarises the results of three seasonal influenza seasons: 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11. In 2008/09, 27/29 countries completed the survey; in 2009/10 and 2010/11, 28/29 completed it. All or almost all countries recommended vaccination of older people (defined as those aged ≥50, ≥55, ≥59, ≥60 or ≥65 years), and people aged ≥6 months with clinical risk and healthcare workers. A total of 23 countries provided vaccination coverage data for older people, but only 7 and 10 had data for the clinical risk groups and healthcare workers, respectively. The number of countries recommending vaccination for some or all pregnant women increased from 10 in 2008/09 to 22 in 2010/11. Only three countries could report coverage among pregnant women. Seasonal influenza vaccination coverage during and after the pandemic season in older people and clinical groups remained unchanged in countries with higher coverage. However, small decreases were seen in most countries during this period. The results of the surveys indicate that most EU/EEA countries recommend influenza vaccination for the main target groups; however, only a few countries have achieved the target of 75% coverage among risk groups. Coverage among healthcare workers remained low.

Reflections on Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 and the International Response

Gabriel Leung and Angus Nicoll provide their reflections on the international response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, including what went well and what changes need to be made in anticipation of future flu pandemics.

The epidemiology of progressive intellectual and neurological deterioration in childhood

Objective To study the epidemiology of diseases that cause progressive intellectual and neurological deterioration (PIND) in UK children. Design Since May 1997, the authors have performed active surveillance to search for variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease (vCJD) among the many diseases that cause neurological deterioration in children, using the monthly surveillance card sent to all UK consultant paediatricians by the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit. The authors obtain clinical details from reporting paediatricians by questionnaire or site visit, and an Expert Group then independently classifies the cases. Results After 12 years, 2636 patients less than 16 years old with suspected PIND had been reported, of whom 1114 had a confirmed diagnosis to explain their deterioration: in these children, there were 147 different diseases. These were the six commonest diagnostic groups: leukoencephalopathies (183 cases), neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses (141 cases), mitochondrial diseases (122 cases), mucopolysaccharidoses (102 cases), gangliosidoses (100 cases) and peroxisomal disorders (69 cases). Relatively large numbers of PIND children were reported from parts of the UK where there are high rates of consanguinity. Only six children with vCJD (four definite, two probable) had been identified. Conclusions Although this study does not ascertain all UK cases, it provides a novel insight into the epidemiology of the neurodegenerative diseases that cause PIND in children. It is reassuring that in general these children are carefully investigated and that active surveillance has found only six children with vCJD. However, there is concern that more childhood vCJD cases may appear, possibly with a different genotype from those identified so far.

Comment on “Seroevidence for H5N1 Influenza Infections in Humans: Meta-Analysis”

A better understanding of the severity of H5N1 in humans is needed. Wang et al. (Brevia, 23 March 2012, p. 1463; published online 23 February 2012) overinterpret the results of seroprevalence studies and take too little account of underlying uncertainties. Although the true risk of death from H5N1 infection will likely be lower than the 60% of reported laboratory-confirmed cases, there is little evidence of millions of missed infections.

Influenza serological studies to inform public health action: best practices to optimise timing, quality and reporting

Please cite this paper as: Laurie et al. (2013) Influenza serological studies to inform public health action: best practices to optimise timing, quality and reporting. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 7(2) 211–224.

The consortium for the standardization of influenza seroepidemiology (CONSISE): a global partnership to standardize influenza seroepidemiology and develop influenza investigation protocols to inform public health policy

CONSISE – The consortium for the Standardization of Influenza Seroepidemiology – is a global partnership to develop influenza investigation protocols and standardize seroepidemiology to inform health policy. This international partnership was formed in 2011 and was created out of a need, identified during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, for timely seroepidemiological data to better estimate pandemic virus infection severity and attack rates to inform policy decisions. CONSISE has developed into a consortium of two interactive working groups: epidemiology and laboratory, with a steering committee composed of individuals from several organizations. CONSISE has had two international meetings with more planned for 2013. We seek additional members from public health agencies, academic institutions and other interested parties.

Moderate pandemic, not many dead—learning the right lessons in Europe from the 2009 pandemic

It could have been very different (Table 1). Although it was clear, from an early stage, that the 2009 influenza pandemic was likely to be less severe than the 1918 ‘Spanish Flu’, which killed an estimated 50 million people,1 there was still much uncertainty among European authorities on how it might develop. View this table: Table 1 Positive features of the 2009 pandemic for Europe Three factors played a role in mitigating its impact. First, many of those in their mid-50s and above possessed cross-immunity from a similar virus that circulated before the 1957 pandemic.2 Hence, older people who account for over 90% of deaths from seasonal influenza were relatively spared. Those who died were mainly children and younger adults; among deaths reported to ECDC, about 80% were >65 years old. Second, along with Japan and China, Europe was the last industrialized region to be affected, enabling it to draw on the experience of North America, temperate countries in the Southern Hemisphere, and the one European country, the UK, that experienced a significant Spring/Winter wave. Therefore, the UK authorities were well placed to advise the rest of Europe what to expect, and what not to do. Its experience endorsed the guidance from the WHO and ECDC not to try to contain the uncontainable. Third, many European countries had worked intensively to strengthen their previously variable degree of pandemic preparedness. As a consequence, there were no disproportionate government reactions such as those in Mexico, Argentina and the Ukraine. The coordinated review mechanisms in some of the European plans also made it possible to adapt responses once the WHO declared the …

The importance of influenza prevention for public health

Annual epidemics of seasonal (inter-pandemic) influenza represent a significant burden on society in terms of morbidity, mortality, hospitalizations and lost working time. The impact of influenza depends on a mix of direct and indirect effects and is not easy to assess. Nevertheless there is a consensus in considering influenza prevention and mitigation high priorities for public health. We review the available evidence to assess the impact of influenza prevention focusing especially on vaccines and immunization strategies.

School closures during the 2009 influenza pandemic: national and local experiences

BackgroundSchool closure is a non-pharmaceutical intervention that was considered in many national pandemic plans developed prior to the start of the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic, and received considerable attention during the event. Here, we retrospectively review and compare national and local experiences with school closures in several countries during the A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic. Our intention is not to make a systematic review of country experiences; rather, it is to present the diversity of school closure experiences and provide examples from national and local perspectives.MethodsData were gathered during and following a meeting, organized by the European Centres for Disease Control, on school closures held in October 2010 in Stockholm, Sweden. A standard data collection form was developed and sent to all participants. The twelve participating countries and administrative regions (Bulgaria, China, France, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Serbia, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom, and United States) provided data.ResultsOur review highlights the very diverse national and local experiences on school closures during the A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic. The processes including who was in charge of making recommendations and who was in charge of making the decision to close, the school-based control strategies, the extent of school closures, the public health tradition of responses and expectations on school closure varied greatly between countries. Our review also discusses the many challenges associated with the implementation of this intervention and makes recommendations for further practical work in this area.ConclusionsThe single most important factor to explain differences observed between countries may have been the different public health practises and public expectations concerning school closures and influenza in the selected countries.