Research articleImproving Influenza Vaccination Rates in the Workplace: A Randomized Trial
Introduction
Influenza is the most commonly occurring vaccine-preventable disease, resulting in an estimated 226,000 excess hospitalizations and 36,000 deaths in the U.S. annually.1 Although most influenza-related morbidity and mortality occurs among the very young and very old, all age groups are affected, including the working population. More than one half of the 216.5 million U.S. adults aged 20–64 years are employed,2 making working adults the largest group affected by influenza.3 Those infected may become debilitated, bedridden, miss up to 6 days of work per infection, and require up to 2 weeks for full recovery.3 Influenza has been estimated to cause more than 70 million lost working days in the U.S. each year4 and to result in $16.3 billion in lost earnings.5
Among adults, influenza vaccine is recommended for those with chronic health conditions, all those aged ≥50 years, caregivers of young children and older adults, healthcare workers, and anyone who wishes to prevent influenza disease, among others. The workplace is the most common location to receive an influenza vaccine outside the physician's office, with a reported one third of vaccinees aged 18–49 years and one fifth of vaccinees aged 50–64 years receiving the vaccine at work.6 For these reasons, the worksite is an ideal place to vaccinate large numbers of eligible individuals against influenza. A 2004 survey7 found that 70% of U.S. corporations offer influenza vaccines in the employer setting. Unfortunately, workplace vaccination rates are low even among employees who are afforded the convenience of on-site vaccination, often without charge. One study8 reported that 18% of nearly 1000 U.S. companies vaccinated more than 50% of their employees. In a recent survey9 of 54 U.S. corporations, 96% of which employed >1000 full-time workers, only eight (15%) reported on-site influenza vaccination rates that were higher than 50%. Even among healthcare personnel, whose vaccination against influenza is a patient safety issue,10, 11, 12 the average national vaccination rate is only 42%.1
As reported in studies13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of healthcare workers, working adults, and adults with unreported working status, reasons for not receiving the influenza vaccine include respondents' belief that healthy people do not need to be vaccinated, lack of physician recommendation, fear of vaccine side effects, infrequent physician visits, and aversion to needles. Conversely, improved access to vaccine and elimination of cost have been shown to be inducements to influenza vaccination;15, 23 both of these factors are addressed by on-site, free vaccine clinics. Previous influenza vaccination is a powerful predictor of vaccine uptake,22, 24 as is an individual's estimate of the percentage of coworkers who are accepting vaccination.22 Therefore, a program designed to increase overall workplace influenza vaccination rates would (1) inform working adults about influenza vaccination recommendations and advertise the availability of an on-site influenza vaccine clinic; (2) reduce barriers such as fear of side effects, cost, and inconvenience; and (3) help establish the habit of receiving influenza vaccine.
The purpose of this study was to improve workplace influenza vaccination rates overall and among workers aged <50 years, by increasing advertisement efforts to heighten awareness of the vaccine clinic; promoting influenza vaccine clinics with a choice of vaccine type (i.e., injectable trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine [TIV] or intranasal, live attenuated influenza vaccine [LAIV, MedImmune]) to minimize needle aversion; and offering employees an incentive for receiving vaccine to encourage first-time vaccinees.
Section snippets
Site Selection, Inclusion, and Exclusion Criteria
Passport Health, Inc. (PHI), a travel vaccine company that provides employer-based influenza vaccine clinics across the U.S., developed a list of potential employers estimated to have ≥60 employees that contracted with them for employee influenza vaccine clinics during the past three influenza seasons. These employers were contacted by the local PHI office to determine their interest in participating in the study. Participating sites were offered an influenza vaccine clinic on site at no cost
Results
Of the 131 companies contacted by PHI, 44 (33.6%) refused to participate or did not respond. Of the remaining 87 sites, 33 did not meet the basic eligibility criteria; therefore, the remaining 54 were randomized (Figure 1). Of the companies excluded, only one site was excluded for having used seven doses of LAIV in the past season; there were only two screened employers that recorded any LAIV use.
The overall 2007–2008 vaccination rate for all employees among the ineligible sites was 34.2±15.2%
Discussion
Lost work time resulting from illness of workers or their family members leads to considerable productivity losses in business and industry. Hence, businesses have integrated health and wellness programs, such as exercise and nutrition classes, smoking-cessation programs, and psychological counseling, on site to provide workers convenient access, to reduce disease burden, and to lower health insurance premiums. One such employee wellness program is annual influenza vaccination. Workplace
Conclusion
A national randomized cluster trial found a modest increase in the uptake of influenza vaccine among employees offered on-site vaccination clinics. An incentive for vaccination, an intensified advertising campaign, and offering a choice of influenza vaccines improved vaccination rates in the workplace and can be used across a variety of non-healthcare business types and sizes.
References (38)
- et al.
The annual impact of seasonal influenza in the U.S.: measuring disease burden and costs
Vaccine
(2007) - et al.
Where adults reported receiving influenza vaccination in the U.S.
Am J Infect Control
(2005) - et al.
Requiring influenza vaccination for healthcare workers: seven truths we must accept
Vaccine
(2005) - et al.
Barriers to adult immunization
Am J Med
(2008) - et al.
Predictors of influenza vaccine acceptance among healthy adults
Prev Med
(1999) - et al.
Alternative vaccination locations: who uses them and can they increase flu vaccination rates?
Vaccine
(2009) - et al.
Cost benefit of influenza vaccination in healthy, working adults: an economic analysis based on the results of a clinical trial of trivalent live attenuated influenza virus vaccine
Vaccine
(2003) - et al.
Vaccination versus treatment of influenza in working adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Am J Med
(2005) - et al.
Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2009
MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep
(2009) S2301. Employment status—2005–2007 American Community Survey 3-year estimates
The impact of influenza on working days lost: a review of the literature
Pharmacoeconomics
Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1996
Vital Health Stat 10
More companies offering wellness programs for employees
Work site based influenza vaccination in healthcare and non healthcare settings
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
Quick survey: on-site flu vaccinations
The next battleground for patient safety: influenza immunization of healthcare workers
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
2008 National Patient Safety Goals disease-specific care
Healthcare worker beliefs about influenza vaccine and reasons for non-vaccination—a cross-sectional survey
J Clin Nurs
Influenza vaccination among healthcare workers
Israel Med Assoc J
Cited by (49)
Low uptake of seasonal influenza vaccination in Al-Jouf region of Saudi Arabia
2023, Saudi Pharmaceutical JournalPotential Consequences of Not Using Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine
2017, American Journal of Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :The 2003 licensure of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), a nasal spray, introduced a new needle-sparing form of vaccine administration and led to vaccine acceptance among needle-averse individuals.1,2 Having a choice among vaccines and administration modes may increase uptake1–5; offering a choice between LAIV and inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) to adults increased uptake by 5–7 percentage points.6 However, potential positive effects of an LAIV option have been countermanded by changing recommendations for its use resulting from varying effectiveness estimates.
Does cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccine choice vary across the U.S.? An agent-based modeling study
2017, VaccineCitation Excerpt :The impact of vaccine choice on disease burden should not be underestimated, particularly given influenza’s significant annual morbidity and mortality. Our data are augmented by survey data [2–7,37] and a clinical trial of the impact of choice on vaccination coverage [1]. We believe that public health leaders and medical managers should consider methods to increase vaccine choice, towards the greater purposes of higher vaccine coverage and prevention of disease, when effective vaccines are available.