Next Article in Journal
Levels of Neutralizing Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in Mothers and Neonates after Vaccination during Pregnancy
Previous Article in Journal
Advanced Glycation End Products and Psoriasis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Vaccines
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/vaccines11030618
vaccines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Measles Immunization Status of Health Care Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study Exploring Factors Associated with Lack of Immunization According to the Health Belief Model

by
Vincenzo Restivo
*,
Alessandra Fallucca
,
Federica Trapani
,
Palmira Immordino
,
Giuseppe Calamusa
and
Alessandra Casuccio
Department of Health Promotion, Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE) “G. D’Alessandro”, University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 133, 90127 Palermo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vaccines 2023, 11(3), 618; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11030618
Submission received: 16 January 2023 / Revised: 6 March 2023 / Accepted: 7 March 2023 / Published: 9 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Epidemiology)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Suboptimal levels of measles vaccination coverage make Italy a country where the circulation of the virus is still endemic. In the past decade, several nosocomial outbreaks of measles occurred in Italy that rapidly spread the infection among large numbers of hospitalized patients and susceptible healthcare workers (HCWs). A cross-sectional study was conducted at the University Hospital of Palermo (Italy) to estimate the rate of HCWs immunization and to investigate the factors associated with lack of immunization. The attitude to the immunization practice was evaluated by exploring the Health Belief Model. Overall, 118 HCWs were enrolled, with a mean age of 31 years and 59.3% male. About half of the sample (45.8%, n = 54) was found not to be immunized against measles. Multivariable analysis showed that the factors directly associated with the non-immunization status against measles were female sex (OR = 3.70, p = 0.056), being an HCW different from a physician (OR = 10.27, p = 0.015), having a high perception of barriers to vaccination (OR = 5.13, p = 0.047), not being immunized for other exanthematous diseases such as chickenpox (OR = 9.93, p = 0.003), mumps (OR = 33.64, p < 0.001) and rubella (OR = 10.12, p= 0.002). There is a need to contrast the low adherence of HCWs to measles vaccination by identifying effective strategies to increase immunization coverage and limiting the risk of further nosocomial measles outbreaks.

1. Introduction

Measles is a highly contagious vaccine-preventable disease that can cause serious complications in susceptible people. In the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region, measles endemic transmission was stopped in 37 out of 53 Member States (MS) by 2018. Sixteen MS (30%) are still measles-endemic, including Italy [1]. From the beginning of 2017 to the end of 2018, 8078 cases of measles were reported in Italy, of which 5397 in 2017 and 2681 in 2018, with an incidence of 89.1 and 44.3 cases per million inhabitants, respectively [2]. The emergence of measles outbreaks in Italy is a multifaceted phenomenon due to a variety of factors. However, there is growing evidence that the main cause is the accumulation of a large pool of susceptible populations due to low vaccination uptake over the years [3]. Vaccination coverage shows a decreasing trend, falling below the 95% threshold needed to stop the circulation of the virus, according to the recommendations of the WHO and the Italian National Plan for the Elimination of Measles and Rubella. In Italy, measles vaccination coverage in 2020 was 92.8% for the first dose and 88.3% for the second one among the 18 years old people [4]. The combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine was introduced in Italy in the 1990s, and universal vaccination was recommended for all newborns [5]. The current Italian Immunization Program for measles provides a first dose of vaccine at 13–15 months of life and a second one at 6 years. Since 2017, vaccination against measles has been included in “mandatory childhood vaccinations,” but there is no vaccination catch-up policy for non-immunized adults [6].
The endemic circulation of measles can lead to several outbreaks of the disease also in the healthcare setting, as occurred in Italy [7,8]. Indeed, measles’ high effective reproduction number and virus spread kinetics increase the risk of large-scale outbreaks in hospitals [8,9]. Measles can spread rapidly in nosocomial settings causing a major public health emergency, as non-immune healthcare workers (HCWs) can contract the infection due to the high volume of contacts. It is estimated that the risk of acquiring pathologies such as measles is estimated to be two to 19 times higher in HCW than in the general population [10]. Moreover, HCWs could transmit the infection to patients that are at high risk of severe outcomes. Currently, although in Italy, vaccination for HCWs is strongly recommended by the National Vaccine Prevention Plan (PNPV) as a useful preventive practice, there are no regulatory restrictions on the employment of HCWs based on immune status monitoring [6,11].
Although the measles vaccine has been available in Italy for over 20 years, and its safety and efficacy have been demonstrated over time, vaccine hesitancy is also present among HCWs [12,13]. The WHO identified the “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines” as one of the 10 threats to global health in 2019 [13]. Notwithstanding, a growing number of people perceive vaccines as unsafe and unnecessary [14]. Vaccine decision-making can be explained by cognitive models such as the Health Belief Model (HBM) [15]. Developed in the 1950s, HBM continues to be one of the most accredited and widely used theories to investigate the attitude to adhere to a preventive practice, such as vaccination. HBM allows us to predict adopted behaviors by exploring, on the one hand, people’s perceived susceptibility or vulnerability to a certain disease and, on the other hand, the expected potential benefits and barriers to vaccination [16,17]. Vaccine decision-making may also be influenced by social, demographic and economic factors that could be the determinants of measles vaccination uptake [18,19].
The main objective of this study is to investigate the lack of immunization against measles among HCWs. The second objective is to investigate HCWs’ perceptions of the severity of this exanthematous disease and of the efficacy of vaccination as a strategy to prevent it in a country where nosocomial outbreaks of measles are documented.

2. Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the University Hospital of Palermo, Italy, a large teaching hospital with more than 600 beds in various wards (predominantly medical and surgical specialties), from January to May 2022, through the administration of a questionnaire addressed to HCWs. The study population included all HCWs for which a telephone number and email address were available in the register of the University Hospital of Palermo. About 2000 HCWs work at the University Hospital of Palermo; we invited the HCWs with an available telephone number and email address (n = 900) to respond to the questionnaire. The sample was recruited by sending text messages and emails containing a description of the objectives and methods of the study, an informed consent form and a link to an anonymous questionnaire.
The questionnaire consisted of 4 sections. The first concerned socio-demographic information and personal behaviors with items about age, sex, smoking and alcohol habits, working activities and healthcare setting. The second section consisted of the HBM that investigates, through 8 items, four different domains of the model: benefits related to measles vaccinations, barriers for acceptability of measles vaccine, susceptibility of infection and severity of diseases. The available response options, according to a Likert scale, ranged from 1 = “I strongly disagree” to 5 = “I strongly agree.” For each respondent, the scores relating to the 2 items of the same domain were added (range score 2–10 per domain), and the median value was calculated (median score = 8). The median value was used as a cut-off to recategorize the score for each domain as “High level” ≥ 8 or “Medium-Low level” < 8. The third section of the questionnaire investigated the attitudes and beliefs of HCWs towards vaccinations as follows, considering: vaccinations for healthcare professionals as a prerequisite for their health, vaccinations of health workers to avoid absences from work, and recommending vaccinations to patients in clinical practice. The fourth one investigated the immunization status against measles and other exanthematous diseases, such as mumps, rubella and chickenpox, the natural acquisition of the infection and the eventual intention to recover the vaccination against measles not done previously. Vaccination status was ascertained by checking the Vaccination Register of the Palermo Hospital Vaccination Unit, which was based on vaccinations reported on vaccination cards.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee Palermo 1 (protocol code 09/2021 on 15 September 2021).
The normality of the distribution for the quantitative variables was assessed with the Skewness and Kurtosis test. Means and standard deviations (SDs) were chosen for the normal distribution of these variables, while median and interquartile range (IQR) was used for non-normal distribution. The absolute and relative frequencies were calculated for the qualitative variables. The differences of quantitative variables normally and not normally distributed among measles immunization status were evaluated respectively with Student’s T-test and the Wilcoxon and Mann–Whitney tests, while for the qualitative variables, the Chi2 test was used. Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the factors associated with the lack of measles immunization. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to analyze the covariates associated with univariable analysis with a p-value lower than 0.10 and for a priori confounding variables. For all analyses, a p-value of 0.05 was assumed to indicate significance (2-tailed). All collected data were analyzed using Stata/SE 14.2 statistical software (Copyright 1985–2015, StataCorp LLC, 4905 Lakeway Drive, College Station, TX, USA. Revision 29 January 2018).

3. Results

Overall, 120 out of 900 HCWs contacted by telephone and email were enrolled (response rate = 13%), but 2 were excluded because they did not consent to the processing of personal data. The majority of people interviewed were male (59.3%, n = 70), and the mean age was 31 years old. A considerable number of respondents (45.8% n = 54) were not immunized against measles because they did not contract the natural infection and did not receive the two doses of vaccine needed for protection. With regards to employment, 33.1% (n = 39) were medical residents, followed by healthcare students (30.5%, n = 36), physicians (19.5%, n = 23), and other healthcare professionals (16.9%, n = 20). About a quarter of HCWs suffered from a chronic, acute, or allergic condition at the time of the interview (25.6%, n = 29) and about a third reported taking medications regularly (33.1%, n = 39). More than half of the sample reported alcohol consumption two to four times a month, and 26.3% (n = 31) said they smoked regularly (Table 1).
The HBM construct analysis showed that 72.9% (n = 86) of HCWs had a high level of risk perception related to measles infection, and 81.4% (n = 96) correctly perceived the benefits of measles vaccination, but, at the same time, more than a third (39.8%, n = 47) believed that there were difficulties and barriers related to vaccination adherence. Furthermore, investigating the immune status against other vaccine-preventable viral diseases, it was found that the majority of respondents were immunized against chickenpox (77.9%, n = 92), mumps (60.2%, n = 71) and rubella (57.6%, n = 68; Table 2).
Comparison between “non-immunized” and “immunized” HCWs for measles showed that the non-immunized were more frequently female (50.0% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.058) and medical students (37.0% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.301; Table 1). Additionally, non-immunized HCWs more frequently reported that it was not their competence to recommend vaccination to patients (24.1% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.070), had low perceptions of measles-related severity (42.6% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.100) and had a low perception of vaccination benefits (20.4% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.658; Table 2).
At the multivariable analysis, the factors associated with the non-immunization status against measles were: being an HCW different from a physician (OR = 10.27, p = 0.015), high perception of barriers to vaccination (OR = 5.13, p = 0.047), not being immunized for other exanthematous diseases such as chickenpox (OR = 9.93, p = 0.003), mumps (OR = 33.64, p < 0.001) and rubella (OR = 1.12, p = 0.002; Table 3).

4. Discussion

Nosocomial transmission of measles represents a major and emerging public health problem that seriously threatens immunization aimed at achieving the elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases. The measles outbreaks that have occurred in several Italian healthcare facilities were signals of the resurgence risk of measles due to the reduction in the level of immunization against measles, both among the general population and HCWs [6,7].
The present study highlighted a rather low level of protection against measles, revealing that about half of the HCWs interviewed had neither received two doses of the vaccine nor acquired natural immunity. The immunization rate of the recruited HCWs was similar to what has been reported by other studies carried out in the Italian healthcare context [20]. However, the level of protection against measles of Italian HCWs is lower than in other European countries [21]. The crucial role of HCWs in measles transmission has been demonstrated, given the potential for rapid and large-scale spread of the disease in healthcare settings [22]. The inadequate HCWs immunization rate could be among the main causes of the endemic measles circulation in Italy, which is, in fact, among the 16 WHO European Regions that have not yet succeeded in stopping measles [1,10].
In Italy, measles vaccination was introduced in 1979 in the pediatric population, and later, in the 1990s, the combined vaccine against measles-mumps-rubella was approved for all newborns and recommended for all adults of categories at risk of contagion and transmission by occupational exposure [23]. Furthermore, Italian law 119/2017, containing “Urgent provisions on vaccine prevention, infectious diseases and disputes relating to the administration of drugs,” and the Ministerial Circular 25233/2017 ordered the collection of data on the vaccination and immunological status of workers in some settings exposed to a high number of contacts, such as school, health, and social care [5,24]. In fact, as required by the decree of the President of the Italian Republic 445/2000, teachers, social workers, and HCWs must submit a report of their vaccination status to the institutions for which they work [25]. However, despite these legal measures, vaccinations have not become mandatory for HCWs, and therefore, they have no legal obligation to be vaccinated. One approach to addressing this issue could be to ensure that measles vaccination becomes a condition of pre-placement authorization for HCWs or, alternatively, to demonstrate infection by serological screening [26]. However, the mandatory nature of vaccination for workers in some specific risk sectors remains a controversial issue [27]. HCWs should not be inclined to accept vaccination due to the risk of infecting themselves during care practices but for the professional responsibility to the care of their patients. Despite this, a substantial percentage of respondents to this survey, nearly one-fifth, believed that measles vaccination for HCWs was not essential and should not be mandatory. These data are quite critical, considering a high percentage of HCWs are not immunized for measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases [28,29]. Awareness campaigns conducted on-site and with specific one-to-one counseling for hesitant HCWs, may be needed to counter measles vaccine refusal [30].
This study showed that physicians had less probability of not being immunized against measles than other professional roles in health settings. Similarly, previous surveys about immunization attitudes and risk perceptions of rash diseases in HCWs revealed that physicians were more immunized to conditions such as chickenpox and mumps and that they had higher vaccine knowledge and a higher likelihood to be vaccinated [31,32]. One possible explanation of this evidence should be that the medical formation acquired through the medicine course could lead to more complete and in-depth training on infectious diseases and their possible complications, making physicians more aware of the importance of vaccinations [33]. Training courses focused on prevention and vaccination should be offered to all HCWs in order to increase knowledge and awareness of vaccine-preventable diseases and to increase acceptance of measles vaccination.
A factor associated with not immunization against measles was the high perception of barriers to vaccination. This factor, belonging to the HBM constructs, was investigated with items regarding accessibility to the vaccination centers and their opening hours. Most not immunized HCWs and the general population perceived the opening hours of vaccination clinics as an obstacle to getting vaccinated [34,35]. This data could be due to the working hours of HCWs, which very often involve double shifts or fast shifts with little free time between the transition of two shifts. As demonstrated by a study conducted in Norway, long work shifts are very frequent in the health sector and are associated with considerable difficulties in adopting a healthy lifestyle, which would also include prevention through vaccination [36]. Increasing the accessibility of vaccinations, such as offering vaccinations directly in the workplace, could be a solution to implement vaccine acceptability among not immunized HCWs.
Another factor significantly associated with not immunization status against measles was the not immunization status against other exanthematous diseases, such as chickenpox, mumps, and rubella. The lack of immunization against these diseases was due to the lack of vaccination and the lack of immunity acquired following a natural infection. Several studies have shown that people who get a viral infection have a higher risk of getting secondary infections. The measles virus, in particular, has been identified as a suppressor of the immune system, and the authors attribute the immunosuppression to the depletion of T and B lymphocytes [37,38]. Immune suppression is, therefore, a possible cause of the relationship between multiple infectious diseases, but it cannot be excluded that other factors may also contribute. It is known that some behavioral habits play an important role in the prevention of infectious diseases, such as hand washing, the use of medical-surgical masks, and social distancing [39]. Therefore, the non-occurrence of measles infection and other infectious diseases caused by respiratory viruses could also be related to the adoption of these hygienic-sanitary standards [40]. However, the adoption of health and hygiene standards cannot be sufficient to protect HCWs and prevent them from infecting hospitalized and frail patients due to the high number of contacts in the healthcare setting. It is necessary to reiterate the importance of vaccination against measles and to contrast vaccine hesitancy among healthcare professionals, promoting clear and effective communication about vaccinations and adopting innovative strategies that lead to informed acceptance of vaccination, such as targeted training for HCWs.
A result with a marginal statistical significance that emerged from the analysis concerns the lower immunization rate for measles in women compared to men. This result is confirmed by a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted in Italy but contrasts with the data more frequently reported in the literature, where the higher rates in women are due to the prevention of risks related to some infections in pregnant women [20,41]. These results could represent a first alert on the change in women’s attitude towards the vaccination practice, which could reflect a decrease in women’s attention to prevention in pregnancy.
The main limitation of this study is the recall bias due to the delay between measles vaccination practice and questionnaire administration. Furthermore, the immunological status of healthcare workers was not verified with serological tests, but the immunization status against measles was self-reported by the respondents because the Sicily region does not have a single vaccination registration system. Furthermore, the enrolment procedure based on SMS and e-mail could have included HCWs more suitable to answer online questionnaires, and the small sample size is not representative of all Italian HCWs. This could limit the generalizability of data. Despite the previous limitations, this study explored the association between measles immunization and one of the well-established cognitive behavioral models, such as the Health Belief Model, in a population of HCWs with suboptimal measles immunization coverage.

5. Conclusions

This study revealed inadequate levels of measles protection among HWCs related to the high risk of nosocomial outbreaks of infection. Refusal of measles vaccination among HCWs may be influenced by perceived barriers to vaccination and low awareness of disease severity. It may be necessary to identify innovative strategies for vaccinations offered to HCWs and promote training courses in order to sensitize HCWs to preventive practices and achieve optimal vaccination coverage for measles. Further studies are needed with a large HCWs population in order to confirm these results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.R. and A.C.; methodology, V.R., F.T. and A.F.; software, V.R. and A.F.; validation, F.T., P.I. and G.C.; formal analysis, A.F.; investigation, F.T.; resources, P.I., G.C., A.C. and V.R.; data curation, V.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.F.; writing—review and editing, V.R., G.C., P.I. and A.C.; visualization, A.F.; supervision, G.C., P.I. and A.C.; project administration, V.R.; funding acquisition, G.C. and A.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee Palermo 1 (protocol code 09/2021 on 15 September 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be available after a motivated request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WHO. Regional Office for Europe. 8th Meeting of the European Regional Verification Commission for Measles and Rubella Elimination (RVC). Available online: https://www.who.int/teams/immunization-vaccines-and-biologicals/immunization-analysis-and-insights/surveillance/monitoring/provisional-monthly-measles-and-rubella-data (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  2. Epicentro-ISS-Italy. Integrated Surveillance of Measles and Rubella in Italy: The Two Epidemic Waves of Measles in 2017 and 2018. Available online: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/ben/2019/settembre/sorveglianza-morbollo-rosolia-2017-2018 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  3. Andrianou, X.D.; Del Manso, M.; Bella, A.; Vescio, M.F.; Baggieri, M.; Rota, M.C.; Pezzotti, P.; Filia, A. Spatiotemporal distribution and determinants of measles incidence during a large outbreak, Italy, September 2016 to July 2018. Euro. Surveill. 2019, 24, 1800679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Italian Ministry of Health. Adolescent Vaccinations. Year 2020 (Year 2002-18 Years) Vaccination Coverage (Per 100 Inhabitants) for Vaccinations of Adolescents. Available online: https://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_tavole_20_9_6_file.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  5. Minestry of Health. Circular Containing the First Operational Indications for the Implementation of the Decree Law n. 73 of 7 June 2017, Converted with Amendments by Law 31 July 2017, n. 119. Available online: https://www.corvelva.it/en/area-legale/legge-119-2017/vaccini-inviata-alle-scuole-la-circolare-operativa-con-procedure-e-scadenze.html (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  6. Italian Health Ministry. National Vaccination Prevention Plan. Available online: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/vaccinazioni/dettaglioContenutiVaccinazioni.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=4828&area=vaccinazioni&menu=vuoto (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  7. Porretta, A.; Quattrone, F.; Aquino, F.; Pieve, G.; Bruni, B.; Gemignani, G.; Vatteroni, M.L.; Pistello, M.; Privitera, G.P.; Lopalco, P.L. A nosocomial measles outbreak in Italy, February-April 2017. Euro. Surveill. 2017, 22, 30597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Baccolini, V.; Sindoni, A.; Adamo, G.; Rosso, A.; Massimi, A.; Bella, A.; Filia, A.; Magurano, F.; Marzuillo, C.; Villari, P.; et al. Measles among healthcare workers in Italy: Is it time to act? Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2020, 16, 2618–2627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Kim, C.J.; Bae, J.Y.; Jun, K.I.; Chung, H.S.; Kim, A.; Kim, J.; Son, H.J.; Lee, M.; Choi, H.J. Risk of Absence of Measles Antibody in Healthcare Personnel and Efficacy of Booster Vaccination. Vaccines 2021, 9, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. La Torre, G.; Marte, M.; Imeshtari, V.; Colaprico, C.; Ricci, E.; Shaholli, D.; Barletta, V.I.; Serruto, P.; Gaeta, A.; Antonelli, G. Susceptibility towards Chickenpox, Measles and Rubella among Healthcare Workers at a Teaching Hospital in Rome. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Immunization of Health-Care Personnel: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm. Rep. 2011, 60, 1–45. [Google Scholar]
  12. Karafillakis, E.; Dinca, I.; Apfel, F.; Cecconi, S.; Wűrz, A.; Takacs, J.; Suk, J.; Celentano, L.P.; Kramarz, P.; Larson, H.J. Vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in Europe: A qualitative study. Vaccine 2016, 34, 5013–5020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. WHO-Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  14. Dubé, È.; Ward, J.K.; Verger, P.; MacDonald, N.E. Vaccine Hesitancy, Acceptance, and Anti-Vaccination: Trends and Future Prospects for Public Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2021, 42, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Janz, N.K.; Becker, M.H. The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Educ. Q. 1984, 11, 1–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Wagner, A.L.; Boulton, M.L.; Sun, X.; Mukherjee, B.; Huang, Z.; Harmsen, I.A.; Ren, J.; Zikmund-Fisher, B.J. Perceptions of measles, pneumonia, and meningitis vaccines among caregivers in Shanghai, China, and the health belief model: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatr. 2017, 17, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fallucca, A.; Immordino, P.; Riggio, L.; Casuccio, A.; Vitale, F.; Restivo, V. Acceptability of HPV Vaccination in Young Students by Exploring Health Belief Model and Health Literacy. Vaccines 2022, 10, 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Restivo, V.; Napoli, G.; Marsala, M.G.; Bonanno, V.; Sciuto, V.; Amodio, E.; Calamusa, G.; Vitale, F.; Firenze, A. Factors associated with poor adherence to MMR vaccination in parents who follow vaccination schedule. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2015, 11, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Yörük, S. Factors associated with childhood vaccine hesitancy and measles vaccine hesitancy among healthcare students. Nurs. Health Sci. 2020, 22, 1030–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Genovese, C.; Picerno, I.A.M.; Trimarchi, G.; Cannavò, G.; Egitto, G.; Cosenza, B.; Merlina, V.; Icardi, G.; Panatto, D.; Amicizia, D.; et al. Vaccination coverage in healthcare workers: A multicenter cross-sectional study in Italy. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 2019, 60, E12–E17. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Galián Muñoz, I.; Gómez Pellicer, M.D.; Grau Polán, M.; Llorach Asunción, I.M. Study of prevalence of protection against measles in health workers of Murcia Health Service. Rev. Esp. Salud. Publica. 2019, 93, e201903009. [Google Scholar]
  22. Torner, N.; Solano, R.; Rius, C.; Domínguez, A. Surveillance Network Of Catalonia Spain TM. Implication of health care personnel in measles transmission. Hum Vaccin. Immunother. 2015, 11, 288–292. [Google Scholar]
  23. Italian Ministry of Health. Circular n. 12 of 13 July 1999 on the Control and Elimination of Measles, Rubella and Mumps through Vaccination. Available online: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/malattieInfettive/archivioNormativaMalattieInfettive.jsp?lingua=italiano&iPageNo=45 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  24. Restivo, V.; Palmeri, S.; Bono, S.; Caracci, F.; Russo Fiorino, G.; Foresta, A.; Gaglio, V.; Graziano, G.; Marchese, V.; Maniglia, M.; et al. Knowledge and attitudes of parents after the implementation of mandatory vaccination in kindergartens of Palermo, Italy. Acta Biomed. 2020, 91 (Suppl. S3), 41–47. [Google Scholar]
  25. Official Gazette of the Italian Republic. Decree of the President of the Republic 28 December 2000, n. 445 Containing the Consolidated Act of Legislative and Regulatory Provisions on Administrative Documentation. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/ (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  26. Coppeta, L.; Balbi, O.; Baldi, S.; Pietroiusti, A.; Magrini, A. Pre-vaccination IgG screening for mumps is the most cost-effectiveness immunization strategy among Health Care Workers. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2019, 15, 1135–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Basu, S.; Giri, P.; Adisesh, A.; Mcnaught, R. Healthcare workers and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) status: How worried should we be about further outbreaks? Epidemiol. Infect. 2014, 142, 1688–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Restivo, V.; Costantino, C.; Mammina, C.; Vitale, F. Influenza like Illness among Medical Residents Anticipates Influenza Diffusion in General Population: Data from a National Survey among Italian Medical Residents. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0168546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Restivo, V.; Vizzini, G.; Mularoni, A.; Di Benedetto, C.; Gioè, S.M.; Vitale, F. Determinants of influenza vaccination among solid organ transplant recipients attending Sicilian reference center. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother 2017, 13, 346–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Taddei, C.; Ceccherini, V.; Niccolai, G.; Porchia, B.R.; Boccalini, S.; Levi, M.; Tiscione, E.; Santini, M.G.; Baretti, S.; Bonanni, P.; et al. Attitude toward immunization and risk perception of measles, rubella, mumps, varicella, and pertussis in health care workers working in 6 hospitals of Florence, Italy 2011. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2014, 10, 2612–2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Riccò, M.; Cattani, S.; Casagranda, F.; Gualerzi, G.; Signorelli, C. Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices of occupational physicians towards vaccinations of health care workers: A cross sectional pilot study in North-Eastern Italy. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2017, 30, 775–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Amodio, E.; Casuccio, A.; Tramuto, F.; Costantino, C.; Marrella, A.; Maida, C.M.; Vitale, F.; Restivo, V. Varicella vaccination as useful strategy for reducing the risk of varicella-related hospitalizations in both vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts (Italy, 2003–2018). Varicella vaccination as useful strategy for reducing the risk of varicella-related hospitalizations in both vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts (Italy, 2003–2018). Vaccine 2020, 38, 5601–5606. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Napolitano, F.; Bianco, A.; D’Alessandro, A.; Papadopoli, R.; Angelillo, I.F. Healthcare workers’ knowledge, beliefs, and coverage regarding vaccinations in critical care units in Italy. Vaccine 2019, 37, 6900–6906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Restivo, V.; Orsi, A.; Ciampini, S.; Messano, G.A.; Trucchi, C.; Ventura, G.; Casuccio, A.; Vitale, F. How should vaccination services be planned, organized, and managed? Results from a survey on the Italian vaccination services. Ann. Ig. 2019, 31 (Suppl. S1), 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  35. Amodio, E.; Minutolo, G.; Casuccio, A.; Costantino, C.; Graziano, G.; Mazzucco, W.; Pieri, A.; Vitale, F.; Zarcone, M.; Restivo, V. Adverse Reactions to Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: A Prospective Cohort Study Based on an Active Surveillance System. Vaccines 2022, 10, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vedaa, Ø.; Djupedal, I.L.R.; Svensen, E.; Waage, S.; Bjorvatn, B.; Pallesen, S.; Lie, S.A.; Nielsen, M.; Harris, A. Health-promoting work schedules: Protocol for a large-scale cluster randomised controlled trial on the effects of a work schedule without quick returns on sickness absence among healthcare workers. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e058309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pelton, B.K.; Hylton, W.; Denman, A.M. Selective immunosuppressive effects of measles virus infection. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 1982, 47, 19–26. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kerdiles, Y.M.; Sellin, C.I.; Druelle, J.; Kerdiles, Y.M.; Sellin, C.I.; Druelle, J.; Horvat, B. Immunosuppression caused by measles virus: Role of proteins. Rev. Med. Virol. 2006, 16, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jefferson, T.; Del Mar, C.B.; Dooley, L.; Ferroni, E.; Al-Ansary, L.A.; Bawazeer, G.A.; van Driel, M.L.; Jones, M.A.; Thorning, S.; Beller, E.M.; et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 11, CD006207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Jefferson, T.; Foxlee, R.; Del Mar, C.; Dooley, L.; Ferroni, E.; Hewak, B.; Prabhala, A.; Nair, S.; Rivetti, A. Cochrane Review: Interventions for the interruption or reduction of the spread of respiratory viruses. Evid. Based Child Health 2008, 3, 951–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Arora, M.; Lakshmi, R. Vaccines-safety in pregnancy. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2021, 76, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of enrolled HCW by measles immunization status.
Table 1. Characteristics of enrolled HCW by measles immunization status.
Total HCW RespondentsMeasles Immunized n(%)Measles Not Immunized n(%)p Value
11864 (54.2%)54 (45.8%)
Mean Age 31.031.9300.57
Gender
Male70 (59.3%)43 (67.2%)27 (50.0%)0.058
Female48 (40.7%)21 (32.8%)27 (50.0%)
Occupation
Physician23 (19.5%)17 (26.6%)6 (11.1%)0.163
Medical resident39 (33.1%)20 (31.3%)19 (35.2%)
Medical student36 (30.5%)16 (25.0%)20 (37.0%)
Other
HCW		20 (16.9%)11 (17.2%)9 (16.7%)
Chronic or acute or allergic disease
Yes29 (25.6%)16 (25.0%)13 (24.1%)0.907
No89 (75.4%)48 (75.0%)41 (75.9%)
Taking medications regularly
Yes39 (33.1%)22(34.4%)17 (31.5%)0.709
No79 (66.9%)42 (65.6%)37 (68.5%)
Smoke
Yes31 (26.3%)15 (23.4%)16 (29.6%)0.446
No87 (73.7%)49 (76.6%)38 (70.4%)
AlcoholNever15 (12.7%)6 (11.1%)9 (14.1%)0.61
Less than once a month29 (24.6%)13 (24.1%)16 (25.0%)
2 or 4 times a month63 (53.4%)31 (24.1%)32 (50.0%)
2 or 3 times a week10 (8.5%)3 (5.6%)7 (10.9%)
4 or more times a week1 (0.9%)1 (1.9 %)0
Table
Table 2. Health Belief Model and HCW’s vaccination attitude by measles immunization status.
Table 2. Health Belief Model and HCW’s vaccination attitude by measles immunization status.
Total HCW Respondents n(%)Measles Immunized n(%)Measles Not Immunized n(%)p Value
11864 (54.2%)54 (45.8%)
Health Belief Model (Domains)
Perceived susceptibility to measles infection
High level86 (72.9)47 (73.4)39 (72.2)0.882
Medium-Low level32 (27.1)17 (26.6)15 (27.8)
Perceived severity of measles infection
High level77 (65.3)46 (71.9)31 (57.4)0.100
Medium-Low level41 (34.7)18 (28.1)23 (42.6)
Perceived barriers to measles vaccination
High level47 (39.8)40 (62.5)31 (57.4)0.573
Medium-Low level71 (60.2)24 (37.5)23 (42.6)
Perceived benefits of measles vaccination
High level96 (81.4)53 (82.8)43 (79.6)0.658
Medium-Low level22 (18.6)11(17.2)11 (20.4)
Vaccination Beliefs
Do you think that vaccinations for healthcare professionals are a prerequisite for their health?
Absolutely disagree1 (0.9)01 (1.9)0.813
Mostly disagree2 (1.7)1 (1.6)1 (1.9)
Neither agree nor disagree6 (5.1)4 (6.3)2 (3.7)
Fairly agree35 (29.7)19 (29.7)16 (29.6)
Absolutely agree74 (62.4)40 (62.5)34 (63.0)
Do you think that vaccinations of health workers are an important tool to avoid absences from work?
Absolutely disagree2 (1.7)02 (3.7)0.562
Mostly disagree5 (4.2)2 (3.1)3 (5.6)
Neither agree nor disagree9 (7.6)5 (7.8)4 (7.4)
Fairly agree46 (39.0)25 (39.1)21 (38.9)
Absolutely agree56 (47.5)32 (50.0)24 (44.4)
During your clinical practice, do you recommend vaccinations to your patients?
Yes91 (77.1)52 (81.3)39 (72.2)0.070
Not2 (1.7)2 (3.1)0
Sometimes4 (3.4)3 (4.7)1 (1.9)
It is not my competence17 (14.4)4 (6.3)13 (24.1)
I do not know3 (2.5)2 (3.1)1 (1.9)
Other1 (0.9)1 (1.6)0
Immunization status against some exanthematous diseases
Immunized against chickenpox (complete vaccination with two doses or acquired infection)
Yes92 (77.9)57 (89.1)35 (64.8)
Not26 (22.1)7 (10.9)19 (35.2)
Immunized against mumps (complete vaccination with two doses or acquired infection)
Yes71 (60.2)56 (87.5)15 (27.8)<0.001
Not47 (39.8)8 (12.5)39 (72.2)
Immunized against rubella (complete vaccination with two doses or acquired infection)
Yes68 (57.6)55 (85.9)13 (24.1)<0.001
Not50 (42.4)9 (14.1)41 (75.9)
Table
Table 3. Univariable and multivariable analysis of factors associated with lack of measles immunization status.
Table 3. Univariable and multivariable analysis of factors associated with lack of measles immunization status.
Crude ORpAdjusted ORp
GenderMaleref ref
Female2.050.0603.700.056
Age (per year increment) 0.820.3111.180.648
SmokeNoref ref
Yes1.380.4470.410.276
AlcoholNoref ref
Yes1.070.7420.660.282
Occupation PhysicianYesref ref
No2.890.04010.270.015
Susceptibility to measles infectionLowref ref
High0.940.8820.890.893
Severity of measles infectionLowref ref
High0.530.1001.130.872
Barriers to measles vaccinationLowref ref
High1.240.5745.130.047
Benefits of measles vaccinationLowref ref
High0.810.6591.040.967
Immunized against chickenpoxYesref ref
No4.420.0029.930.003
Immunized against mumpsYesref ref
No18.20<0.00133.64<0.001
Immunized against rubellaYesref ref
No19.27<0.00110.120.002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Restivo, V.; Fallucca, A.; Trapani, F.; Immordino, P.; Calamusa, G.; Casuccio, A. Measles Immunization Status of Health Care Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study Exploring Factors Associated with Lack of Immunization According to the Health Belief Model. Vaccines 2023, 11, 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11030618

AMA Style

Restivo V, Fallucca A, Trapani F, Immordino P, Calamusa G, Casuccio A. Measles Immunization Status of Health Care Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study Exploring Factors Associated with Lack of Immunization According to the Health Belief Model. Vaccines. 2023; 11(3):618. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11030618

Chicago/Turabian Style

Restivo, Vincenzo, Alessandra Fallucca, Federica Trapani, Palmira Immordino, Giuseppe Calamusa, and Alessandra Casuccio. 2023. "Measles Immunization Status of Health Care Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study Exploring Factors Associated with Lack of Immunization According to the Health Belief Model" Vaccines 11, no. 3: 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11030618

APA Style

Restivo, V., Fallucca, A., Trapani, F., Immordino, P., Calamusa, G., & Casuccio, A. (2023). Measles Immunization Status of Health Care Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study Exploring Factors Associated with Lack of Immunization According to the Health Belief Model. Vaccines, 11(3), 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11030618

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop