Acceptability and uptake of a community-based flu immunisation programme.

Health bulletin Pub Date : 2001-03-01
J Farmer, L Iversen, G Peterkin, P Strachan, H Kelman, K Proctor, M Emslie
{"title":"Acceptability and uptake of a community-based flu immunisation programme.","authors":"J Farmer,&nbsp;L Iversen,&nbsp;G Peterkin,&nbsp;P Strachan,&nbsp;H Kelman,&nbsp;K Proctor,&nbsp;M Emslie","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate a community based influenza immunisation programme in terms of patients' and primary care professionals' satisfaction and uptake of immunisation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Surveys were conducted which compared the experiences and opinions of groups of staff and patients who had experienced the programme with groups where general practice was responsible for immunisation arrangements.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Primary care.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Patients eligible for influenza immunisation and general practice staff involved in providing immunisation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A good response was obtained from patients (82.2%:2,900) and general practices (83.3%:55). Patients from both programme and comparison groups reported high levels of satisfaction with flu immunisation arrangements. Preferences expressed tended to coincide with patients' experiences of arrangements. Around 40% of both groups desired information. A minority of unvaccinated patients (more programme patients than comparators) expressed difficulties in accessing clinics. There were both advantages and disadvantages for general practices involved in the programme. Although time consumed in giving injections was less for programme staff, they reported substantial time spent on programme-related administration and dealing with patients' queries. Programme figures indicate uptake of 53.8% (not including those vaccinated elsewhere). Survey results show that 58.5% of programme patients who responded were vaccinated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In light of recent Scottish Executive Health Department guidance, experiences of this programme may be of interest to those contemplating Local Development Schemes for flu immunisation. Findings highlight the dilemma between potential economies of scale and continuity of care for patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":75896,"journal":{"name":"Health bulletin","volume":"59 2","pages":"127-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate a community based influenza immunisation programme in terms of patients' and primary care professionals' satisfaction and uptake of immunisation.

Design: Surveys were conducted which compared the experiences and opinions of groups of staff and patients who had experienced the programme with groups where general practice was responsible for immunisation arrangements.

Setting: Primary care.

Subjects: Patients eligible for influenza immunisation and general practice staff involved in providing immunisation.

Results: A good response was obtained from patients (82.2%:2,900) and general practices (83.3%:55). Patients from both programme and comparison groups reported high levels of satisfaction with flu immunisation arrangements. Preferences expressed tended to coincide with patients' experiences of arrangements. Around 40% of both groups desired information. A minority of unvaccinated patients (more programme patients than comparators) expressed difficulties in accessing clinics. There were both advantages and disadvantages for general practices involved in the programme. Although time consumed in giving injections was less for programme staff, they reported substantial time spent on programme-related administration and dealing with patients' queries. Programme figures indicate uptake of 53.8% (not including those vaccinated elsewhere). Survey results show that 58.5% of programme patients who responded were vaccinated.

Conclusions: In light of recent Scottish Executive Health Department guidance, experiences of this programme may be of interest to those contemplating Local Development Schemes for flu immunisation. Findings highlight the dilemma between potential economies of scale and continuity of care for patients.

接受和采用基于社区的流感免疫接种方案。
目的:根据患者和初级保健专业人员对免疫接种的满意度和接受程度,评估基于社区的流感免疫接种计划。设计:进行了调查,比较了经历过该规划的工作人员和患者群体与由全科医生负责免疫安排的群体的经验和意见。环境:初级保健。受试者:符合流感免疫接种条件的患者和参与提供免疫接种的全科医生。结果:患者(82.2%:2900人)和全科医生(83.3%:55人)的反应良好。项目组和对照组的患者都报告了对流感免疫接种安排的高满意度。所表达的偏好倾向于与患者的安排经验相一致。两组中都有大约40%的人希望获得信息。少数未接种疫苗的患者(方案患者多于比较国患者)表示难以进入诊所。该方案所涉及的一般做法既有优点也有缺点。尽管规划工作人员在注射上花费的时间较少,但他们报告说,在与规划有关的管理和处理病人的询问上花费了大量时间。规划数字表明接种率为53.8%(不包括在其他地方接种疫苗的人)。调查结果显示,58.5%对规划作出反应的患者接种了疫苗。结论:根据苏格兰卫生行政部门最近的指导,这一方案的经验可能对那些考虑流感免疫地方发展计划的人感兴趣。研究结果强调了潜在的规模经济和患者护理连续性之间的困境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书