The impact of selected educational and information interventions on the coverage rate and attitudes to influenza vaccination in nursing staff

Abstract

Background: Influenza vaccinations are recommended for medical staff as an effective and safe form of preventing influenza and its complications. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of selected educational and information interventions on the influenza vaccination coverage (IVC) in nursing personnel and their attitude towards this procedure. Material and Methods: The study participants (N = 320) were randomly divided into 4 groups. Group 1 participated in stationary training, whereas group 2 participated in distance learning. Additionally, 2 subgroups were established in each of the groups above: 1 subgroup received a reminder about the vaccination in the form of a short text message, and the other group did not receive any such reminder. The IVC rate in each group was determined; the attitude towards influenza vaccination was measured using the health belief model. Results: The highest IVC was obtained after stationary training followed by a reminder in the form of a short test message (36%). The reminder significantly affected IVC in the group attending stationary training (p < 0.05, OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.16–5.58); however, it had no impact on the IVC in the group participating in distance learning (p > 0.05, OR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.51–2.83). Both stationary training and distance learning positively influenced the attitude towards influenza vaccinations. A major change in attitudes towards influenza vaccinations was observed only in the case of stationary training followed by a reminder in the form of a short text message (positive changes in perceived susceptibility and severity took place, perceived vaccination benefits increased, and perceived barriers were reduced). Conclusions: Stationary training followed by a reminder in the form of a short text message is more effective in increasing the IVC rate compared to distance learning. It also promotes positive changes in attitudes to this prophylactic procedure, which is why it should be recommended for wider implementation. Med Pr. 2020;71(6):665–85.