Suchergebnisse

In response to the decline in child vaccination coverage and the subsequent occurrence of large vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks, in 2017 Italy introduced a new law that made ten vaccines mandatory for children aged 0–16 years. The policy change initiated an ongoing debate among the general public, as well as in the political arena and the scientific community, over this major public health concern. Hence, we conducted a survey aimed at assessing Italian public health professionals' attitudes towards and opinions on mandatory vaccination. A validated online questionnaire was administered to 1350 members of the Italian Society of Hygiene, Preventive Medicine and Public Health. Among the 1044 responders (response rate 77%), a large majority were in favour of the Italian mandatory vaccination law (91%) and against its repeal (74%). Nevertheless, according to our sample, maintaining a high level of vaccination coverage without the need to mandate would be preferable, and thus efforts to promote vaccine confidence and proactive vaccine uptake are still needed.

Introduction In response to the low rate of vaccination coverage and the concerns around vaccine hesitancy and refusal, in 2017 Italy introduced ten mandatory vaccinations for preschool and school-age children. The debate over mandatory vaccination is still on and involves citizens as well as politicians and health professionals. Within this context, we designed a survey to assess Italian public health professionals' attitudes and beliefs towards mandatory vaccination. Materials and methods The survey was piloted on a sample of 73 public health professionals belonging to the Italian Society of Hygiene (SItI). The on-line questionnaire consists of five sections: socio-demographic information; political and health system attitudes; personal and professional experience with vaccinations; attitudes and beliefs towards mandatory vaccination; perception of the epidemiologic, social and economic impact of mandatory vaccination. Results Fifty-two people completed the questionnaire, a response rate of 71%. They are mostly medical doctors (86 %) working in Universities (56%) or Prevention departments (21%) and directly involved in vaccinations (71%). The vast majority of respondents is in favor of the Italian mandatory vaccine Law (85%) and 65% believes that it should not be removed. Moreover, 83% or respondents is against the recent Government's proposal of introducing a "flexible" obligation. Among the alternative strategies to mandatory vaccinations, the favorite are vaccination promotion and information campaigns for the general population and organizational interventions to strengthen vaccination services. Nevertheless, 67% of respondents consider their implementation to be very difficult. Concerning the epidemiologic impact of mandatory vaccination, the majority or respondents agree that mandatory vaccination is able to increase vaccination coverage and reduce morbidity from vaccine-preventable infectious diseases. Concerning the social impact, the majority of respondents believes that mandatory vaccination ...

Achieving high levels of vaccination coverage against COVID-19 may be hindered by vaccine hesitancy. We quantified over time the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among university students, investigated its determinants, and analyzed student attitudes, risk perceptions and compliance with preventive measures. The survey was administered online from 1 March to 30 June 2021. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to identify predictors of hesitancy. Overall, we collected 5369 questionnaires that were grouped into three survey periods (March, April– May, and May–June). The response rate ranged from 81.2% to 76.4%, whereas vaccine hesitancy ranged from 22% to 29%. Multivariable analysis showed that April–May participants had higher odds of hesitancy than March respondents. Other positive predictors were being male, not being a healthcare student, having a lower academic level, and not disclosing a political position. Conversely, higher levels of perceived COVID-19 severity, concern for the emergency, confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness, and self-reported adherence to mask wearing indoors and outdoors were negatively associated with hesitancy. We found that vaccine hesitancy changed over time and in relation to several factors. Strategies aimed at increasing the students' awareness and engagement, restoring confidence in health authorities, and limiting disinformation around the vaccines should be devised.

Introduzione- Premesse e scopo dello studio Nonostante la vaccinazione contro il morbillo da parte degli operatori sanitari sia fortemente raccomandata in Europa, molti studi hanno evidenziato la loro bassa copertura vaccinale e un significativo coinvolgimento in epidemie ospedaliere, particolarmente costose e compromettenti per la qualità e sicurezza dell'assistenza sanitaria. L'obiettivo di questo studio è stato quello di analizzare le caratteristiche dei casi di morbillo registrati tra operatori sanitari, identificarne i modelli di trasmissione epidemiologica ed offrire considerazioni rilevanti per il dibattito attuale sulle politiche vaccinali. Materiali e metodi I casi di morbillo notificati tra operatori sanitari sono stati raccolti attraverso il Sistema Nazionale di Sorveglianza Integrata del Morbillo e della Rosolia dal 1 gennaio 2013 al 15 maggio 2019. Contestualmente, ove compilate, sono state analizzate le schede descrittive dei focolai di morbillo che annualmente vengono inviate all'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità come parte del report nazionale sullo stato di avanzamento dell'eliminazione del morbillo e della rosolia congenita in Italia per il periodo 2014-2018. Risultati La Sorveglianza Integrata di Morbillo e Rosolia ha registrato 730 casi di morbillo avvenuti in operatori sanitari nel periodo 2013- 2018. Le Regioni maggiormente interessate sono state Lombardia, Lazio, Toscana, Emilia-Romagna, Sicilia e Piemonte, con il sesso femminile il più colpito (64%). Oltre il 70% dei casi totali era di età compresa tra i 15 e i 39 anni e più dell'90% delle volte non vaccinato. Nei primi mesi del 2019, già 54 casi su 956 riguardano operatori sanitari, di cui 17 sono associati a focolai ospedalieri. Relativamente al quinquennio 2014-2018, su un totale di 144 focolai coinvolgenti operatori sanitari, 64 schede descrittive sono state debitamente compilate. La maggior parte dei focolai è stata confinata in ospedale (47%) ma un'altra parte (36%) si è successivamente diffusa anche in comunità. I casi indice ...

Background: Many studies have shown that low health literacy (HL) is associated with several adverse outcomes. In this study, we systematically reviewed the prevalence of low HL in Europe. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Cross-sectional studies conducted in the European Union (EU), published from 2000, investigating the prevalence of low HL in adults using a reliable tool, were included. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Inverse-variance random effects methods were used to produce pooled prevalence estimates. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the association between low HL and the characteristics of the studies. Results: The pooled prevalence of low HL ranged from of 27% (95% CI: 18–38%) to 48% (95% CI: 41–55%), depending on the literacy assessment method applied. Southern, Western, and Eastern EU countries had lower HL compared to northern Europe (β: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.40–1.35; β: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.25–0.93; and β: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.06–1.37, respectively). The assessment method significantly influenced the pooled estimate: compared to word recognition items, using self-reported comprehensions items (β: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.15–1.08), reading or numeracy comprehensions items (β: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.24–1.31), or a mixed method (β: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.01–1.33) found higher rates of low HL. Refugees had the lowest HL (β: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.26–2.92). Finally, lower quality studies reported higher rates of low HL (β: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.06–1.07). Discussion: We found that low HL is a public health challenge throughout Europe, where one in every three to almost one in every two Europeans may not be able to understand essential health-related material. Additional research is needed to investigate the underlying causes and to develop remedies.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown that low health literacy (HL) is associated with several adverse outcomes. In this study, we systematically reviewed the prevalence of low HL in Europe. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Cross-sectional studies conducted in the European Union (EU), published from 2000, investigating the prevalence of low HL in adults using a reliable tool, were included. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Inverse-variance random effects methods were used to produce pooled prevalence estimates. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the association between low HL and the characteristics of the studies. RESULTS: The pooled prevalence of low HL ranged from of 27% (95% CI: 18–38%) to 48% (95% CI: 41–55%), depending on the literacy assessment method applied. Southern, Western, and Eastern EU countries had lower HL compared to northern Europe (β: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.40–1.35; β: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.25–0.93; and β: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.06–1.37, respectively). The assessment method significantly influenced the pooled estimate: compared to word recognition items, using self-reported comprehensions items (β: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.15–1.08), reading or numeracy comprehensions items (β: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.24–1.31), or a mixed method (β: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.01–1.33) found higher rates of low HL. Refugees had the lowest HL (β: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.26–2.92). Finally, lower quality studies reported higher rates of low HL (β: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.06–1.07). DISCUSSION: We found that low HL is a public health challenge throughout Europe, where one in every three to almost one in every two Europeans may not be able to understand essential health-related material. Additional research is needed to investigate the underlying causes and to develop remedies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42019133377 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-020-06407-8.