Healthcare 05 00013

healthcare
Article
Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviours towards
Recommended Vaccinations among
Healthcare Workers
Giuseppe La Torre *, Stefania Scalingi, Veronica Garruto, Marco Siclari, Massimiliano Chiarini
and Alice Mannocci
Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Roma, Italy;
stefaniascalingi@gmail.com (S.S.); veronicagarruto11@gmail.com (V.G.); info@marcosiclari.it (M.S.);
massimiliano.chiarini@uniroma1.it (M.C.); alice.mannocci@uniroma1.it (A.M)
* Correspondence: giuseppe.latorre@uniroma1.it; Tel.: +39-6-4969-4308
Academic Editors: Peter A. Leggat and Derek R. Smith

Received: 31 January 2017; Accepted: 1 March 2017; Published: 7 March 2017
Abstract: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are an important group of professionals exposed to biological
risk during their work activities. So, the aim of this study is to perform a survey on the knowledge,
attitude and behaviour of Italian HCWs towards the vaccinations recommended by the Ministry of
Health. A cross-sectional study was carried out during the period September 2014–August 2015 in the
Lazio region. The study was conducted by recruiting HCWs and biomedical students. The sample
was comprised of 571 responders, of whom 12.4% were physicians, 18.9% were nurses, 34.3% were
other HCW, and 34.3% were biomedical students (medical and nurses students). Hepatitis B virus
(HBV) is perceived as a risk for personal health by 457 (80%) participants; TB is also worrying
(434; 76%). Moreover, HBV (70.9%) and tuberculosis (TB) (79.2%) are perceived as a risk for health,
while influenza is not considered so by most participants (46.2%). There is an underestimation of
the role of influenza, perceived as a risk for 137 respondents (24%). The vaccination rate among
these HCWs is highest for Hepatitis B virus (HBV) (82%), and lowest for influenza (28.5%) and
varicella (40.3%). The vast majority of responders are in favour of HBV (77.8%) and TB (64.8%)
vaccines. For other vaccinations there is less interest (between 33% and 40% for measles, mumps,
rubella, pertussis and influenza). This study shows that knowledge of recommended occupational
vaccinations is insufficient in HCWs, with few exceptions represented by HBV and TB. There is a
need for novel approaches in this field, with the aim of enhancing vaccine coverage among HCW.
Keywords: knowledge; attitude; behaviours; vaccinations; healthcare workers
1. Introduction
Healthcare workers (HCWs) are an important group of professionals exposed to biological risk
during their work activities due to contact with patients and materials that are potentially infected.
In this field information, training and prevention are crucial. Vaccinations are the most important
strategy for primary prevention.
In some cases, when a disease can be transmitted through humans, such as influenza or hepatitis B,
the vaccine protects not only the HCW but also colleagues and patients to whom s/he could potentially
transmit the infection [1,2]. However, the vaccination rates among healthcare professionals are not
satisfactory, even if there is some evidence of efficacy [3–5].
In Europe, there are a lot of differences between the recommended vaccinations for HCWs,
as well as differences in the implementation frame (mandatory or recommendation), target HCW
groups and health-care settings [4,6–8].
In Italy the Ministry of Health recommends the following vaccinations for HCWs:
Healthcare 2017, 5, 13; doi:10.3390/healthcare5010013 www.mdpi.com/journal/healthcare

Healthcare 2017, 5, 13 2 of 17
(1) Flu vaccination;

(2) Tubercular vaccination (BCG);
(3) Measles, mumps and rubella vaccination (MMR);
(4) Varicella vaccination;
(5) Pertussis vaccination;
(6) Hepatitis B vaccination.
So, the aim of this study is to perform a survey on the knowledge, attitude and behaviours of
Italian HCWs towards the vaccinations recommended by the Ministry of Health.
2. Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out during the period September 2014–August 2015 in the
Lazio region. The study was conducted by recruiting 612 HCWs and biomedical students in the
following settings: Teaching Hospital Umberto I Rome; Undergraduate course of Nursing at Pomezia,
Sapienza University of Rome; S. Anna Hospital, Pomezia; Dono Svizzero Hospital, Formia.
The questionnaire, administered anonymously, contains biographical details (type of profession,
age, gender, years of occupation) and a part concerning questions about knowledge, attitude and
behaviours towards vaccine-preventable diseases. The following items (possible answers: yes/no)
have been considered:
• Q1: “Which infectious diseases could be a risk for my health, if I am not vaccinated?”
• Q2: “Is exposure to the disease a concrete risk factor for the patient’s health?”
• Q3: “Does the disease X vaccine pose a risk to my health?”
• Q4: “Are the benefits of the disease X vaccine higher than the risks for me?”
• Q5: “Will the disease X vaccine protect my patients?”
• Q6: “For which disease have I been vaccinated?”
• Q7: “Have you had side effects from this vaccination?”
• Q8: “For which diseases is the National Health System (NHS) providing sufficient
communication/information?”
• Q9: “For which diseases do you believe a vaccination should be mandatory for health care
workers?”
• Q10: “For which diseases do you believe a vaccination should be mandatory for biomedical
students?”
• Q11: “For which diseases do you believe a vaccination should be highly recommended, like for
health care workers and students?”
The statistical analysis was conducted using a descriptive approach and a multivariate approach.
For the first one the prevalence of an answer was reported for each item. Moreover, a multiple logistic
regression analysis, considering all of the respondents who answered yes vs. all who answered no to
the questions, was carried out for each item for each disease, taking into consideration the following
variables as explanatory: type of profession (nurses, other professions, students vs. physicians as
a reference group), gender (males as reference), age and years of occupation (both as quantitative
variables) and type of structure (public vs. private, the latter as reference). Multicollinearity between
type of profession and age was checked. The results of the multivariate analysis are presented for each
variable as an Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI).
The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
The statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS, release 23.0. (IBM, North Castle, NY, USA)
All subjects gave their written informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the
study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was
approved by the Ethics Committee of Sapienza University of Rome (Prot. 16, 24 June 2014).
3. Results
The sample was comprised of 571 responders (response rate 93.3%), of whom 12.4% were
physicians, 18.9% were nurses, 34.3% were other HCW, and 34.3% were biomedical students.
Our respondents are mainly employed or are students in public bodies (76.7%). The mean (SD)
and the median age of participants were 33.6 (SD 12.8) and 29 years, while the mean and median
working age of participants were 13.0 (SD 11.4) and 10 years. Most of the responders were females
(366, 64.1%).
3.1. Knowledge and Attitude

Hepatitis B is perceived as a risk to personal health by 457 participants (80%), as well as TB by
434 (76%). There is an underestimation of the role of influenza, perceived as a risk for 137 respondents
(24%) (Table 1).
Concerning the question “Is exposure to the disease a concrete risk factor for the patient’s
health?”, again hepatitis B (70.9%) and TB (79.2%) are perceived as a risk to health, while influenza is
not considered so by most participants (46.2%) (Table 1).
As concerns the question “Does the disease X vaccine pose a risk to my health?”, there is a general
agreement that vaccines are safe. However, vaccines against TB and flu are considered a risk to health
by 14.9% and 14.7% of respondents, respectively, while the vaccine against pertussis is perceived as
the safest (considered a risk by only 7.4%) (Table 1).
Vaccinations are seen as a positive preventive tool by more than 50% of participants (Table 1).
For 73.2% the benefits of vaccination against HBV are higher than the risks for HCWs.
Concerning the question “Will the disease X vaccine protect my patients?”, HBV vaccine is
believed to be the most efficacious for protecting patients’ health (70.1%), while vaccination against flu
is considered to be the worst (positive answers for 54.1% of the sample) (Table 1).
Concerning the mandatory and recommended use of vaccines for HCWs, in relation with issue
8 “For which diseases do you believe a vaccination should be mandatory for health care workers?”
the vast majority of responders are in favour of HBV (77.8%) and TB (64.8%) vaccines. For other
vaccinations there is less interest (between 33.8% and 40.3% for measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis
and influenza) (Table 1). More or less the same results are reported for the mandatory vaccinations
for biomedical students. Again, the vast majority of responders are in favour of HBV (75.7%) and TB
(62.9%) vaccines. For other vaccinations there is less interest (between 33.5% and 38.9.3% for measles,
mumps, rubella, pertussis and influenza) (Table 1).
Finally, for the question “For which diseases do you believe a vaccination should be highly
recommended, like for health care workers and students?”, HBV vaccination was highly recommended
for 71.5%, while they are more sceptical with regards to varicella vaccination for which the prevalence
was the lowest (34.9%) (Table 1).
3.2. Behaviour
As concerns issue 6—“For which disease have I been vaccinated?” the situation is completely
different for the different types of diseases. The vaccination rate is highest for HBV (82%), and lowest
for influenza (28.5%) and varicella (40.3%) (Table 1).
In relation to safety issues after the vaccine, three (0.5%) HCWs reported side effects after measles
vaccine, two (0.4%) after rubella and pertussis vaccine, 4 (0.7%) after TB vaccine, five (0.9%) after
mumps, varicella and flu vaccines, and eight (1.4%) after HBV vaccine.
Concerning the communication/information role of the NHS, the HCWs express a variety of
opinions, with the exception being influenza (37.1%). According to the responders, the NHS is not
performing a good communication concerning pertussis (11.2% of positive answers), followed by
varicella (11.7%), mumps (13.5%), rubella (14.9%) and measles (17.7%) (Table 1).
3.3. Multivariate Analysis

As concerns hepatitis B (Table 2), the variable age is significantly associated with seven out of
11 items considered, with increasing age as a protective factor (meaning that younger healthcare
workers were more likely to believe that Hepatitis B could be a risk to their health), while on the other
hand years of work is a risk factor for five items (meaning that HCWs with more years of work were
more likely to believe that Hepatitis B could be a risk to their health). Generally speaking, being a nurse
or other professionals, as opposed to a physician, is a protective factor for the item under consideration
(seven out of 11), and students have the same pattern only for a single item (Will the disease X vaccine
protect my patients?). Females represent a risk factor for four items, while being in public employment
is a risk factor for a single item (For which diseases is the National health system providing sufficient
communication/information?) and a protective factor for two items.
In relation to TB (Table 3), the variables age, years of work, nurses and working in public bodies
are not associated with any items. Other professions, compared to physicians, are protective factors
for the item “Is exposure to the disease a concrete risk factor for the patient’s health?” while being
students is a risk factor for a single item (For which diseases do you believe a vaccination should be
mandatory for health care workers?). Females represent a risk factor for three items.
As concerns measles (Table 4), the variable age is significantly associated with six out of 11 items
considered, with increasing age as a protective factor for five; on the other hand, years of work is
a risk factor for four items and protective for one item. Generally speaking, being a nurse or other
professionals, as opposed to a physician, is a protective factor for the items under consideration
(eight out of 11), and students have the same pattern only for three items. Females represent a risk
factor for a single item (For which diseases do you believe a vaccination should be mandatory for
health care workers?), while being in public employment is a risk factor for four items.
Considering influenza (Table 5), the variable nurses and other professions, compared to physicians,
is a protective factor for the items under consideration (five and nine out of 11, respectively),
and students have the same pattern only for one item (For which diseases do you believe a vaccination
should be mandatory for biomedical students?). Being employed in a public body is a risk factor for
two items, and protective for a single item (Does the disease X vaccine pose a risk to my health?).
As far as concerns varicella (Table 6), the variables age and years of work are significant factors
for one or two issues, respectively. Nurses, other professions and students, compared to physicians,
are protective factors for one, three and two items under consideration, respectively, and all these
categories are risk factors for the item “For which disease have I been vaccinated?” Being employed in
a public body is a risk factor for a single item (Which infectious diseases could be a risk for my health,
if I am not vaccinated?).
Concerning pertussis (Table 7), the variables age and years of work are significant factors for
five and four issues, respectively. Nurses, other professions and students, compared to physicians,
are protective factors for seven, six and one item(s) under consideration, respectively. Being in public
employment is a risk factor for two items (For which disease have I been vaccinated? and For which
diseases do you believe a vaccination should be mandatory for health care workers?).
In relation to pertussis (Table 8), the variables age and years of work are significant factors for
eight and four issues, respectively. Nurses, other professions and students, compared to physicians,
are protective factors for six, six and one item(s) under consideration, respectively. Being employed in
a public body is a risk factor for two items (For which disease have I been vaccinated? and For which
diseases do you believe a vaccination should be mandatory for health care workers?).
Finally, concerning rubella (Table 9), the variables age and years of work are significant factors
for six and two issues, respectively. Nurses, other professions and students, compared to physicians,
are protective factors for six, five and one item(s) under consideration, respectively. Being in public
employment is a risk factor for three items (For which disease have I been vaccinated? and the two
items concerning the mandatory vaccinations for HCWs and biomedical students).
Table 1. Percentages of positive (agreement) answers on knowledge, attitude and behaviour.
Dependent variable Measles Mumps Rubella Varicella Pertussis Hepatitis B Influenza Tuberculosis
Which infectious diseases could be a risk for my
45.5 41.9 44.8 34 36.4 80 24 76
health, if I am not vaccinated?
Is exposure to the disease a concrete risk factor for
52.5 46.9 50.4 46.1 49.2 70.9 46.2 79.2
the patient’s health?
Does the disease X vaccine pose a risk to my health? 8.4 8.8 8.4 8.6 7.4 11.4 14.7 14.9
Are the benefits of the disease X vaccine higher than
61.1 56.9 60.4 54.3 57.8 73.2 45.7 60.4
the risks for me?
Will the disease X vaccine protect my patients? 61.8 57.8 62 56.7 56.4 70.1 54.1 60.8
For which disease have I been vaccinated? 62.7 55.9 57.8 40.3 48.7 82 28.5 42.4
For which disease is the National health system
17.7 13.5 14.9 11.7 11.2 21.9 37.1 14.2
providing sufficient communication/information?
For which diseases do you believe a vaccination
38.4 37 40.3 33.8 39.8 77.8 40.3 64.8
should be mandatory for health care workers?
38.2 35 38.9 33.5 38.7 75.7 36.6 62.9
should be mandatory for biomedical students?
should be highly recommended, like for health care 39.6 37.1 40.8 34.9 41.5 71.5 46.8 60.9
workers and students?
Table 2. Results of the multivariate analysis considering Hepatitis B.
Other Health Public

Dependent Variable Age Years of Work Nurses Students Females
Professions Employment
Which infectious disease could be a risk for my 0.95 1.05 0.18 0.25 0.53 1.93 1.11
health, if I am not vaccinated? (0.90–0.99) (1–1.11) (0.06–0.51) (0.09–0.69) (0.09–3.20) (1.12–3.33) (0.63–1.95)
Is exposure to the disease a concrete risk factor for 0.95 1.06 0.31 0.35 0.79 1.49 0.79
the patient’s health? (0.90–0.99) (1–1.11) (0.14–0.69) (0.17–0.72) (0.21–2.97) (0.92–2.39) (0.48–1.30)
1.01 1.03 0.54 3.05 1.30 1.08 1.63
Does the disease X vaccine pose a risk to my health?
(0.92–1.02) (0.98–1.08) (0.25–1.18) (0.86–10.80) (0.11–14.36) (0.50–2.32) (0.71–3.71)
Are the benefits of the disease X vaccine higher than 0.97 1.04 0.18 0.28 0.25 1.28 0.74
the risks for me? (0.90–0.98) (0.99–1.09) (0.08–0.42) (0.12–0.61) (0.07–3.69) (0.78–2.10) (0.44–1.25)
0.94 1.04 0.18 0.28 0.25 1.15 1.10
Will the disease X vaccine protect my patients?
(0.90–0.98) (0.99–1.09) (0.08–0.41) (0.12–0.61) (0.07–0.90) (0.72–1.86) (0.68–1.80)
0.98 1.01 0.70 0.55 0.36 1.75 1.07
For which disease have I been vaccinated?
(0.93–1.03) (0.96–1.07) (0.29–1.66) (0.25–1.21) (0.10–1.28) (1.03–2.98) (0.61–1.89)
Did you show side effects after the vaccination for 0.99 1.02 1.04 0.86 1.22 0.53
disease X? (0.82–1.18) (0.84–1.23) (0.08–13.18) (0.08–9.27) (0.20–7.20) (0.61–2.85)
For which diseases is the National health system 0.98 1 0.56 0.49 1.54 1.16 2.34
providing sufficient communication/information? (0.92–1.04) (0.93–1.06) (0.24–1.31) (0.23–1.06) (0.49–4.83) (0.63–2.15) (1.10–4.97)
For which diseases do you believe a vaccination 0.93 1.07 0.19 0.28 1.62 0.59
should be mandatory for health care workers? (0.88–0.98) (1.01–1.13) (0.08–0.44) (0.12–0.62) (0.98–2.69) (0.35–1)
For which diseases do you believe a vaccination 0.94 1.05 0.19 0.25 1.13 1.87 0.72
should be mandatory for biomedical students? (0.90–1) (1–1.10) (0.08–0.44) (0.11–0.55) (0.21–6.04) (1.14–3.04) (0.43–1.20)
0.96 1.05 0.44 0.39 0.86 1.77 0.42
should be highly recommended, like for health care
(0.92–1) (1–1.11) (0.21–0.92) (0.20–0.77) (0.27–2.78) (1.10–2.84) (0.25–0.70)
The bold is referring to the OR that are statistically significant.
Table 3. Results of the multivariate analysis considering TB.
Other Health Public

Which infectious diseases could be a risk for my 1 1 0.64 0.73 1.18 2.13 0.85
health, if I am not vaccinated? (0.94–1.04) (0.95–1.06) (0.30–1.39) (0.36–1.48) (0.31–4.44) (1.29–3.52) (0.49–1.45)
Is exposure to the disease a concrete risk factor for 0.95 1 0.75 0.47 0.51 1.26 0.72
the patient’s health? (0.91–1) (0.99–1.10) (0.32–1.75) (0.22–1) (0.14–1.84) (0.75–2.12) (0.41–1.26)
0.98 1 0.86 1.45 0.52 1.41 1.74
(0.91–1.05) (0.92–1.06) (0.29–2.52) (0.58–3.65) (0.09–2.98) (0.69–2.87) (0.83–3.61)
the risks for me? (0.94–1.02) (0.98–1.08) (0.44–1.70) (0.36–1.21) (0.59–6.18) (0.61–1.50) (0.65–1.63)
1 1 0.84 1 1.63 1.25 1
(0.95–1.03) (0.96–1.05) (0.44–1.61) (0.55–1.80) (0.55–4.84) (0.81–1.95) (0.95–1.03)
1.01 1 1 0.96 2.31 1.20 0.94
(0.96–1.05) (0.96–1.05) (0.51–1.93) (0.53–1.75) (0.80–6.59) (0.77–1.87) (0.59–1.49)
Did you show side effects after the vaccination for 1.13 0.91 0.38
disease X? (0.83–1.52) (0.67–1.24) (0.02–6.74)
For which diseases is the National health system 1 1 0.51 0.64 2.06 0.98 1.58
For which diseases do you believe a vaccination 1 0.98 0.94 1.35 6.31 1.61 0.96
should be mandatory for health care workers? (0.95–1.04) (0.93–1.03) (0.49–1.82) (0.74–2.46) (1.29–30.85) (1.02–2.54) (0.60–1.54)
should be mandatory for biomedical students? (0.96–1.05) (0.92–1.02) (0.57–2.20) (0.53–1.77) (0.67–8.41) (1.01–2.47) (0.68–1.73)
1 1 1.50 1.36 2.25 1.22 0.88
(0.96–1.04) (0.94–1.03) (0.78–2.88) (0.76–2.45) (0.76–6.68) (0.79–1.90) (0.56–1.40)
Table 4. Results of the multivariate analysis considering measles.
Other Health Public

Which infectious diseases could be a risk for my 0.96 1.03 0.55 0.48 0.66 1 1.91
the patient’s health? (0.93–1.01) (0.98–1.08) (0.17–0.67) (0.15–0.54) (0.09–0.74) (0.78–1.92) (0.79–1.97)
1.09 0.90 1.49 2.21 1 0.84 1.26
(1.02–1.16) (0.84–0.97) (0.40–5.44) (0.70–6.89) (0.09–10.47) (0.38–1.83) (0.55–288)
the risks for me? (0.93–1.01) (0.98–1.08) (0.19–0.68) (0.20–0.66) (0.33–4.30) (0.86–2.14) (0.80–2)
0.94 1.04 0.16 0.18 0.24 1.05 1.38
(0.90–0.99) (0.99–1.09) (0.07–0.37) (0.08–0.38) (0.07–0.80) (0.66–1.66) (0.86–2.20)
0.95 1.04 0.18 0.19 0.22 0.89 1.75
(0.93–0.97) (1–1.09) (0.08–0.40) (0.09–0.41) (0.06–0.75) (0.56–1.42) (1.08–2.83)
Did you show side effects after the vaccination for 1.12 0.89 0.80
the disease X? (0.86–1.46) (0.67–1.17) (0.04–14.10)
For which diseases is the National health system 0.98 1.02 0.39 0.50 1.18 1.27 2.06
0.93 1.06 0.25 0.36 0.61 1 1.33
(0.89–0.98) (1.01–1.12) (0.13–0.47) (0.21–0.63) (0.20–1.83) (0.61–1.60) (0.80–2.23)
Table 5. Results of the multivariate analysis considering influenza.
Other Health Public

Which infectious diseases could be a risk for my 1 1.02 0.53 0.53 0.45 0.86 1.86
health, if I am not vaccinated? (0.94–1.04) (0.97–1.08) (0.26–1.08) (0.29–1) (0.13–1.49) (0.53–1.41) (1.08–3.22)
1.04 0.95 1.93 1.53 1.48 0.53
(0.98–1.10) (0.89–1.01) (0.69–5.36) (0.58–4) (0.76–2.88) (0.28–0.97)
Are the benefits of the disease X vaccine higher than 1.03 1 0.45 0.31 1.14 0.68 0.78
the risks for me? (0.98–1.07) (0.94–1.04) (0.22–0.89) (0.17–0.59) (0.39–3.33) (0.43–1.07) (0.48–1.25)
1 1.01 0.58 0.34 0.37 1.03 0.79
(0.95–1.04) (0.97–1.06) (0.29–1.17) (0.18–0.64) (0.12–1.07) (0.66–1.61) (0.49–1.26)
1.02 1 0.36 0.34 0.57 0.80 2.15
(0.98–1.07) (0.95–1.05) (0.18–0.68) (0.19–0.60) (0.19–1.69) (0.50–1.30) (1.25–3.68)
Did you show side effects after the vaccination for 0.94 0.81
the disease X? (0.57–1.54) (0.40–1.64)
For which diseases is the National health system 1 1 0.64 0.55 0.94 0.70 1.32
providing sufficient communication/information? (0.94–1.03) (0.96–1.05) (0.33–1.24) (0.30–1) (0.33–2.66) (0.45–1.09) (0.83–2.12)
For which diseases do you believe a vaccination 1 1 0.19 0.17 0.32 1.43 1.01
1 1 0.36 0.38 0.92 0.96 1.08
(0.95–1.04) (0.96–1.05) (0.18–0.70) (0.21–0.71) (0.31–2.71) (0.62–1.50) (0.68–1.71)
Healthcare 2017, 5, 13 10 of 17
Table 6. Results of the multivariate analysis considering varicella.
Other Health Public

Which infectious diseases could be a risk for my 0.99 0.97 0.66 0.61 0.44 1.16 2.18
0.98 0.89 1.76 2.74 1.93 1.24 2.11
(0.95–1.02) (0.82–0.96) (0.43–7.16) (0.77–9.72) (0.50–7.41) (0.65–2.39) (0.86–5.14)
the risks for me? (0.95–1.03) (0.96–1.06) (0.28–1.07) (0.25–0.85) (0.52–5.58) (0.87–2.12) (0.76–1.89)
0.94 1.04 0.26 0.29 0.41 1.18 1.47
(0.90–0.99) (1–1.10) (0.13–0.54) (0.15–0.56) (0.13–1.29) (0.75–1.86) (0.93–2.34)
1 0.96 2.90 3.55 4.63 0.66 2.13
(0.95–1.04) (0.91–1.01) (1.32–6.36) (1.72–7.32) (1.50–14.24) (0.41–1.06) (1.28–3.54)
Did you show side effects after the vaccination for 1.12 0.89 1.05 0.80
the disease X? (0.86–1.46) (0.67–1.17) (0.06–17.59) (0.04–14.10)
For which diseases is the National health system 0.96 1.01 0.16 0.52 1.43 0.71 10.73
should be mandatory for health care workers? (0.89–0.99) (1–1.12) (0.05–0.27) (0.17–0.59) (0.41–4.20) (0.56–1.57) (1.38–4.47)
0.92 1.07 0.32 0.42 0.82 0.83 1.67
(0.87–0.98) (1.01–1.14) (0.15–0.68) (0.22–0.80) (0.27–2.49) (0.51–1.37) (0.96–2.90)
Healthcare 2017, 5, 13 11 of 17
Table 7. Results of the multivariate analysis considering pertussis.
Other Health Public

Which infectious diseases could be a risk for my 0.97 1 0.48 0.50 0.69 0.73 1.38
the patient’s health? (0.92–1) (0.98–1.08) (0.21–0.82) (0.15–0.54) (0.14–1.26) (0.68–1.65) (0.49–1.25)
1.07 0.90 2.49 2.35 1 0.96 2.31
(1.01–1.15) (0.83–0.97) (0.62–10.03) (0.64–8.64) (0.09–10.95) (0.41–2.26) (0.87–6.09)
the risks for me? (0.94–1.02) (0.97–1.06) (0.38–1.43) (0.28–0.94) (0.44–4.22) (0.70–1.70) (0.68–1.68)
0.94 1.04 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.87 1.12
(0.90–0.98) (0.99–1.09) (0.10–0.46) (0.10–0.42) 0.06–0.70) (0.55–1.38) (0.70–1.79)
0.98 0.97 1.56 1.34 1.21 0.87 1.91
(0.93–1.02) (0.92–1.02) (0.79–3.09) (0.72–2.48) (0.41–3.50) (0.55–1.37) (1.18–3.09)
the disease X? (0.86–1.46) (0.67–1.17) (0.06–17.59) (0.04–14.10)
For which diseases is the National health system 1 0.99 0.15 0.67 2.27 0.60 2.03
0.92 1.08 0.50 0.64 1.14 0.78 1.03
(0.88–0.97) (1.02–1.14) (0.25–0.98) (0.35–1.17) (0.38–3.39) (0.50–1.24) (0.64–1.66)
Healthcare 2017, 5, 13 12 of 17
Table 8. Results of the multivariate analysis considering mumps.
Other health Public

the patient’s health? (0.92–1) (0.98–1.08) (0.31–1.16) (0.21–0.70) (0.21–1.75) (0.72–1.76) (0.64–1.60)
1.07 0.93 1.54 1.93 0.88 1.26 2.38
(1–1.14) (0.86–1) (0.42–5.63) (0.61–6.11) (0.08–9.03) (0.54–2.90) (0.91–6.20)
Are the benefits of the disease X vaccine higher than 0.98 1.02 0.43 0.42 1.90 1 1.05
the risks for me? (0.94–1.02) (0.98–1.07) (0.22–0.86) (0.22–0.79) (0.53–6.7) (0.64–1.56) (0.67–1.67)
0.94 1.04 0.20 0.22 0.24 1 1.38
(0.90–0.99) (0.99–1.10) (0.09–0.43) (0.10–0.45) (0.07–0.76) (0.63–1.58) (0.87–2.20)
0.96 1 1.53 1.31 3.25 0.90 1.61
(0.92–1) (0.95–1.05) (0.79–3) (0.71–2.4) (0.93–11.36) (0.95–1.05) (1.01–2.58)
Did you show side effects after the vaccination for 1.20 0.81 0.93 0.35 1.10 1.06
the disease X? (1.02–1.42) (0.65–1) (0.05–16.25) (0.01–6.30) (0.08–14.16) (0.08–13.45)
For which disease is the National health system 0.94 1.05 0.21 0.53 1.13 2.16
providing sufficient communication/information? (0.86–1.02) (0.96–1.16) (0.06–0.72) (0.22–1.25) (0.29–4.36) (0.86–1.02)
should be mandatory for health care workers? (0.89–0.99) (1–1.12) (0.09–0.41) (0.17–0.60) (0.47–4.73) (0.52–1.44) (1.52–4.96)
0.94 1.05 0.31 0.44 0.80 0.96 1.54
(0.89–0.99) (0.99–1.11) (0.15–0.63) (0.24–0.82) (0.27–2.37) (0.59–1.57) (0.91–2.61)
Healthcare 2017, 5, 13 13 of 17
Table 9. Results of the multivariate analysis considering rubella.
Other Health Public

health, if not vaccinated? (0.92–1) (0.96–1.06) (0.31–1.19) (0.42–1.40) (0.33–2.86) (0.84–2.07) (0.99–2.54)
1.07 0.93 0.72 2.94 1.95 1.17
(0.99–1.14) (0.86–1.01) (0.13–3.78) (0.82–10.49) (0.77–4.96) (0.50–2.75)
the risks for me? (0.93–1.02) (0.98–1.08) (0.18–0.77) (0.21–0.77) (0.36–4.66) (0.76–1.87) (0.71–1.80)
0.95 1.04 0.22 0.28 0.27 1.17 0.95
(0.91–0.99) (0.99–1.09) (0.10–0.47) (0.14–0.58) (0.08–0.88) (0.74–1.85) (0.09–1.99)
0.94 1 1.56 1.68 1.61 1.26 1.87
(0.90–0.99) (0.95–1.05) (0.79–3.10) (0.90–3.13) (0.51–5.07) (0.80–1.99) (1.15–3.02)
the disease X? (0.86–1.46) (0.67–1.17) (0.06–17.59) (0.04–14.10)
For which disease is the National health system 0.95 1.04 0.27 0.68 1.20 1.09 2.35
should be mandatory for health care workers? (0.90–0–99) (1–1.11) (0.05–0.25) (0.17–0.58) (0.33–3.36) (0.59–1.60) (1.15–3.35)
should be mandatory for biomedical students? (0.90–1) (0.99–1.10) (0.08–0.36) (0.17–0.57) (0.49–5.34) (0.60–1.59) (1.03–2.92)
0.93 1.06 0.32 0.50 0.79 1.16 1.25
(0.88–0.98) (1–1.12) (0.15–0.64) (0.27–0.92) (0.26–2.33) (0.72–1.86) (0.88–0.98)
Healthcare 2017, 5, 13 14 of 17
4. Discussion
This study reveals that knowledge of recommended occupational vaccinations is insufficient in
HCWs, with a few exceptions represented by HBV and TB. These results are in agreement with a
couple of previous studies [9,10].
Our HCWs are aware that they are particularly exposed to vaccine-preventable diseases and can
play a role in hospital transmission, which makes them an important target group for vaccination [11].
This fact needs to be addressed particularly for all HCWs, with the exception of medical doctors.
The scientific literature reports many examples of the relationship between HCWs and vaccination
knowledge and needs. As concerns influenza, in a recent Italian study Albano et al. demonstrated that
healthcare workers are not fully aware of the mode of transmission; HCWs with good knowledge of
this issue were those who mostly read pertinent scientific literature [12].
The Italian Ministry of Health recommends flu vaccination with the aim of putting a barrier to
the spread of the infection between patients and HCW and vice versa; this is particularly true if the
patients are fragile [13]. However, flu vaccination among Italian HCWs is confirmed to be far below the
satisfactory levels seen in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada and Australia (prevalence
of coverage between 28% and 51%), with a pooled prevalence of vaccinated of 11% and 15% among
nurses and physicians, respectively [1,14]. Even if in some countries flu vaccination among HCW is
low [15–18], there is evidence that flu vaccination among HCW decreases the risk of influenza-like
illnesses in inpatients admitted to hospital for acute diseases [19], and reduces absenteeism due to
respiratory infections [20].
HCWs in this survey gave particular attention to TB, even if in Italy the incidence rate of
this disease is fewer than 10 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, and this country is classified by WHO
as a low-incidence country. TB vaccination is mandatory for HCWs at a high risk of getting the
disease [21]. Little attention is given by HCWs to vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella,
as well as against varicella, while these are fundamental for susceptible HCW since in recent years
the epidemiology of these diseases has changed, involving more and more adults and older people
instead of children [22–25]. The vaccination rate against pertussis is also low among HCWs, as a recent
review demonstrated. This vaccination is particularly important for HCWs who work in close contact
with infants, children and pregnant women [26].
As concerns HBV vaccination, we can say that it needs to be implemented in countries where the
incidence, as well as the probability of being infected if exposed, is high [27]. In Italy this vaccination
has been mandatory for newborns since 1991, while it is recommended for HCWs. Among biomedical
students, there is evidence that an association between the number of doses and levels of HBS-ab does
exist [28].
Concerning the ethical aspects, some authors are in agreement with the fact that there is a
moral imperative, not only for the general population [29], but also for HCWs to be immune and
for healthcare bodies to require HCWs to be vaccinated, especially workers who are in contact with
patients at high risk of infection [30]. This opens a window onto two related issues: the workplace and
the mandatory implementation of vaccinations among HCWs. Concerning the first issue, one must
recognize that HCWs are at increased risk for exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) in the
workplace, so the reason for immunizing HCWs is based on the need to protect them and, indirectly,
their patients from healthcare-associated VPDs [31].
There is consistent evidence showing that gaps in knowledge and false perceptions about VPDs
and vaccines are the most common barriers to vaccine uptake in HCWs. Moreover, we need to consider
that many countries have immunization recommendations in place for HCWs. On the other hand,
no universal policies do exist and a lack of homogeneity between countries is present concerning the
type of vaccines, schedules, frame of implementation (recommendation or mandatory), and target
categories of HCWs [31].
Healthcare 2017, 5, 13 15 of 17
Systematic reviews show that higher awareness and evidence-based beliefs of HCWs toward
vaccination are associated with greater intentions to vaccinate [32], and in that case the role of vaccine
education is crucial to avoid communication barriers [33].
In relation to the mandatory vaccination for HCWs, according to Maltezou and Poland, it should
be considered that all infectious diseases can be transmitted to susceptible patients, such as hepatitis
B, influenza, measles, mumps, pertussis, rubella and varicella [31]. However, the probability of
adherence to mandatory vaccinations by HCWs is still uncertain and seems to be VPD-specific [4].
In practice, mandatory policies approved at the national level in Europe were only rarely implemented.
More pragmatically, while guidelines for HCW vaccination, but not mandatory policies, have been
adopted all over Europe, there is evidence that recommendations work better if they are focused on
specific HCW groups and appropriate diseases (i.e., hepatitis B, influenza and measles) [34].
The present study has strengths and limitations. As strengths go, this represents a large survey
involving almost 600 HCWs, interviewed anonymously in an efficient way. In terms of limitations,
they are strictly related to the study design and the impossibility of verifying the correctness of some
items (i.e., vaccinations undertaken). Nevertheless, we can conclude that there is a need for novel
approaches in this field, and not only those based on education and training [35]. According to Corace
and Garber, the behaviour change theories and principles could be used as a framework to plan,
guide, and assess vaccine promotion interventions, with the aim of enhancing vaccine coverage among
HCWs [36].
5. Conclusions
According to Maltezou and Poland [37], the immunization of HCWs represents a critical step
toward patient safety. A vaccinated HCW protects him/herself and other people (patients, colleagues,
relatives). In the case of oncology patients, people with multiple trauma or immunocompromised
patients, having a vaccinated HCW could mean avoiding the worsening of their clinical conditions
and increased public health expenditure.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Patrick Perna for the English revision of the manuscript.
Author Contributions: Giuseppe La Torre, Massimiliano Chiarini and Alice Mannocci conceived and designed the
experiments; Stefania Scalingi, Veronica Garruto and Marco Siclari performed the experiments; Giuseppe La Torre,
Massimiliano Chiarini and Alice Mannocci analysed the data; Stefania Scalingi and Veronica Garruto contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools; Giuseppe La Torre wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. La Torre, G.; Mannocci, A.; Ursillo, P.; Bontempi, C.; Firenze, A.; Panico, M.G.; Sferrazza, A.; Ronga, C.;
D’Anna, A.; Amodio, E.; et al. Prevalence of influenza vaccination among nurses and ancillary workers in
Italy: Systematic review and meta analysis. Hum. Vaccin. 2011, 7, 728–733. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. La Torre, G.; Saulle, R.; Unim, B. Hepatitis B immunization in health care workers: Needs and opportunities.
Hepat. Mon. 2011, 11, 664–665. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Fortunato, F.; Tafuri, S.; Cozza, V.; Martinelli, D.; Prato, R. Low vaccination coverage among Italian healthcare
workers in 2013. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2015, 11, 133–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Maltezou, H.C.; Poland, G.A. Vaccination policies for healthcare workers in Europe. Vaccine 2014, 32,
4876–4880. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Prato, R.; Tafuri, S.; Fortunato, F.; Martinelli, D. Vaccination in healthcare workers: An Italian perspective.
Expert Rev. Vaccin. 2010, 9, 277–283. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Maltezou, H.C.; Wicker, S.; Borg, M.; Heininger, U.; Puro, V.; Theodoridou, M.; Poland, G.A. Vaccination
policies for health-care workers in acute health-care facilities in Europe. Vaccine 2011, 29, 9557–9562.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Healthcare 2017, 5, 13 16 of 17
7. Esposito, S.; Bonanni, P.; Maggi, S.; Tan, L.; Ansaldi, F.; Lopalco, P.L.; Dagan, R.; Michel, J.P.; van Damme, P.;
Gaillat, J.; et al. Recommended immunization schedules for adults: Clinical practice guidelines by the
Escmid Vaccine Study Group (EVASG), European Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS) and the World
Association for Infectious Diseases and Immunological Disorders (WAidid). Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2016,
12, 1777–1794. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Wiedermann, U.; Rendi-Wagner, P.; Aigner, G.; Bechter, E.; Druml, C.; Falb, P.; Holzmann, H.; Karbus, G.;
Kollaritsch, H.; Kundi, M.; et al. Vaccination recommendations for health care workers in Austria.
Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2014, 126 (Suppl. 1), S11–S22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Loulergue, P.; Moulin, F.; Vidal-Trecan, G.; Absi, Z.; Demontpion, C.; Menager, C.; Gorodetsky, M.;
Gendrel, D.; Guillevin, L.; Launay, O. Knowledge, attitudes and vaccination coverage of healthcare workers
regarding occupational vaccinations. Vaccine 2009, 27, 4240–4243. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Dinelli, M.I.; Moreira, T.D.; Paulino, E.R.; da Rocha, M.C.; Graciani, F.B.; de Moraes-Pinto, M.I. Immune
status and risk perception of acquisition of vaccine preventable diseases among health care workers. Am. J.
Infect. Control 2009, 37, 858–860. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Haviari, S.; Bénet, T.; Saadatian-Elahi, M.; André, P.; Loulergue, P.; Vanhems, P. Vaccination of healthcare
workers: A review. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2015, 11, 2522–2537. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Albano, L.; Matuozzo, A.; Marinelli, P.; Di Giuseppe, G. Knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of hospital
health-care workers regarding influenza A/H1N1: A cross sectional survey. BMC Infect. Dis. 2014. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
13. Spadea, A.; Unim, B.; Ursillo, P.; Saulle, R.; Giraldi, G.; Miccoli, S.; Barbato, A.; Corda, B.; D’Amici, A.M.;
Boccia, A.; et al. Effectiveness of a training course on influenza vaccination in changing medical students’
and healthcare workers’ attitude towards vaccination. Ig. Sanita Pubblica 2013, 69, 387–402.
14. Mannocci, A.; Ursillo, P.; Bontempi, C.; Sferrazza, A.; La Torre, G. Prevalence of influenza vaccination among
physicians and related enhancing and preventing factors in Italy. Rev. Health Care 2010, 1, 23–30. [CrossRef]
15. O’Connor, L.; Boland, M.; Murphy, H. Preparedness of elderly long-term care facilities in HSE East for
influenza outbreaks. Ir. Med. J. 2015, 108, 6–8. [PubMed]
16. Nessler, K.; Krztoń-Królewiecka, A.; Chmielowiec, T.; Jarczewska, D.; Windak, A. Determinants of influenza
vaccination coverage rates among primary care patients in Krakow, Poland and the surrounding region.
Vaccine 2014, 32, 7122–7127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Nitsch-Osuch, A.; Brydak, L.B. Influenza vaccinations of health care personnel. Med. Pr. 2013, 64, 119–129.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Bonaccorsi, G.; Lorini, C.; Santomauro, F.; Guarducci, S.; Pellegrino, E.; Puggelli, F.; Balli, M.; Bonanni, P.
Predictive factors associated with the acceptance of pandemic and seasonal influenza vaccination in health
care workers and students in Tuscany, Central Italy. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2013, 9, 2603–2612. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
19. Amodio, E.; Restivo, V.; Firenze, A.; Mammina, C.; Tramuto, F.; Vitale, F. Can influenza vaccination coverage
among healthcare workers influence the risk of nosocomial influenza-likeillness in hospitalized patients?
J. Hosp. Infect. 2014, 86, 182–187. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Saxen, H.; Virtanen, M. Randomised, placebo controlled double blind study on the efficacy of influenza
immunization on absenteeism of health care workers. Paediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 1999, 18, 779–783. [CrossRef]
21. DPR 7 novembre 2001, n.465.—Regolamento che stabilisce le condizioni nelle quali è obbligatoria
la vaccinazione antitubercolare, a norma dell’articolo 93, comma 2, della legge 23 dicembre 2000,
n. 388. (In Italian)
22. Amendola, A.; Bianchi, S.; Lai, A.; Canuti, M.; Piralla, A.; Baggieri, M.; Ranghiero, A.; Piatti, A.; Tanzi, E.;
Zehender, G.; et al. Measles re-emergence in Northern Italy: Pathways of measles virus genotype D8,
2013–2014. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2017, 48, 120–126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Boccalini, S.; Bonanni, P.; Bechini, A. Preparing to introduce the varicella vaccine into the Italian immunisation
programme: Varicella-related hospitalisations in Tuscany, 2004–2012. Euro Surveill. 2016. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
24. Giambi, C.; Filia, A.; Rota, M.C.; Del Manso, M.; Declich, S.; Nacca, G.; Rizzuto, E.; Bella, A. Congenital
rubella still a public health problem in Italy: Analysis of national surveillance data from 2005 to 2013.
Euro Surveill. 2015, 20, 21103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Healthcare 2017, 5, 13 17 of 17
25. Gabutti, G.; Guido, M.; Rota, M.C.; De Donno, A.; Ciofi, D.A.M.L.; Crovari, P.; Seroepidemiology Group.
The epidemiology of mumps in Italy. Vaccine 2008, 26, 2906–2911. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Bechini, A.; Tiscione, E.; Boccalini, S.; Levi, M.; Bonanni, P. Acellular pertussis vaccine use in risk
groups (adolescents, pregnant women, newborns and healthcare workers): A review of evidences and
recommendations. Vaccine 2012, 30, 5179–5190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Chaudhari, C.N.; Bhagat, M.R.; Ashturkar, A.; Misra, R.N. Hepatitis B Immunisation in Health Care Workers.
Med. J. Armed Forces India 2009, 65, 13–17. [CrossRef]
28. Sernia, S.; Ortis, M.; Antoniozzi, T.; Maffongelli, E.; La Torre, G. Levels of Anti-HBs Antibody in
HBV-Vaccinated Students Enrolled in the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Professions of a
Large Italian University. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Refolo, P.; González-Melado, F.J.; Di Pietro, M.L. On the moral dutifulness of using vaccinations. Clin. Ter.
2015, 166, 38–42. [PubMed]
30. Galanakis, E.; Jansen, A.; Lopalco, P.L.; Giesecke, J. Ethics of mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers.
Euro Surveill. 2013, 18, 20627. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Maltezou, H.C.; Poland, G.A. Immunization of Health-Care Providers: Necessity and Public Health Policies.
Healthcare 2016, 4, 47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Herzog, R.; Álvarez-Pasquin, M.J.; Díaz, C.; Del Barrio, J.L.; Estrada, J.M.; Gil, Á. Are healthcare
workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review.
BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Simone, B.; Carrillo-Santisteve, P.; Lopalco, P.L. Healthcare workers role in keeping MMR vaccination uptake
high in Europe: A review of evidence. Euro Surveill. 2012, 17, 20206. [PubMed]
34. Galanakis, E.; D’Ancona, F.; Jansen, A.; Lopalco, P.L.; VENICE (Vaccine European New Integrated
Collaboration Effort) National Gatekeepers, Contact Points. The issue of mandatory vaccination for
healthcare workers in Europe. Expert Rev. Vaccin. 2014, 13, 277–283. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Schmidt, S.; Saulle, R.; Di Thiene, D.; Boccia, A.; La Torre, G. Do the quality of the trials and the year of
publication affect the efficacy of intervention to improve seasonal influenza vaccination among healthcare
workers? Results of a systematic review. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2013, 9, 349–361. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Corace, K.; Garber, G. When knowledge is not enough: Changing behavior to change vaccination results.
Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2014, 10, 2623–2624. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Maltezou, H.C.; Poland, G.A. Immunization of healthcare providers: A critical step toward patient safety.
Vaccine 2014. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Healthcare 05 00013

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Healthcare 05 00013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Healthcare 05 00013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

healthcare

Academic Editors: Peter A. Leggat and Derek R. Smith

Keywords: knowledge; attitude; behaviours; vaccinations; healthcare workers

Healthcare 2017, 5, 13; doi:10.3390/healthcare5010013 www.mdpi.com/journal/healthcare

(1) Flu vaccination;

2. Materials and Methods

3.1. Knowledge and Attitude

3.3. Multivariate Analysis

Table 1. Percentages of positive (agreement) answers on knowledge, attitude and behaviour.

Table 2. Results of the multivariate analysis considering Hepatitis B.

Other Health Public

Table 3. Results of the multivariate analysis considering TB.

Other Health Public

Table 4. Results of the multivariate analysis considering measles.

Other Health Public

Table 5. Results of the multivariate analysis considering influenza.

Other Health Public

Table 6. Results of the multivariate analysis considering varicella.

Other Health Public

Table 7. Results of the multivariate analysis considering pertussis.

Other Health Public

Table 8. Results of the multivariate analysis considering mumps.

Other health Public

Table 9. Results of the multivariate analysis considering rubella.

Other Health Public

You might also like