Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32381480›Full record

ArticleVaccine2020

Is flu vaccination opt-out feasible? Evidence from vaccination programme implementers and managers in the English National Health Service.

Sadie Bell, Tracey Chantler, Pauline Paterson, Sandra Mounier-Jack

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. An Examination of COVID-19-Related Stressors among Parents.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sadie BellDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Sadie.bell@lshtm.ac.uk.
Tracey ChantlerDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom.
Pauline PatersonDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom.
Sandra Mounier-JackDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2018/19, English NHS trusts (NHSTs) implemented an 'opt-out' policy for seasonal flu vaccination in frontline healthcare workers (HCWs). HCWs declining the vaccination were asked to sign an opt-out form and provide a reason for their decision. In addition, HCWs working in higher risk hospital environments (e.g. oncology) were asked to inform their manager about their declination decision. The policy aimed to provide greater insight into reasons for vaccination decline and information from HCWs in higher risk areas was intended for use in considering HCW redeployment. This study investigated the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived value of the policy during the 2018/19 flu vaccination season.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews across 9 NHSTs in England with different levels of HCW flu vaccination uptake in 2017/18. We interviewed 30 vaccination programme implementers and 27 managers.

findingsThe purpose of the policy was poorly understood, and interviewees did not know how data on decliners was being used. Most NHSTs tried to collect the personal details of decliners and, in some instances, these were recorded in Electronic Staff Records and reported to line-managers for action. This created strain on employer-employee relationships, leading to decliners refusing to complete opt-out forms and some vaccinators not implementing the policy. None of the NHSTs had a redeployment policy for decliners, arguing that this was impractical due to strain on staffing levels.

conclusionA flu-vaccination opt-out approach for HCWs did not appear acceptable in our sampled NHSTs, due to a lack of clear messaging about its purpose and complicated implementation. To promote an opt-out approach effectively, there needs to be clear communication of its purpose, which should be to explore reasons for decline rather than identify and 'push' decliners to vaccinate, so as not to damage staff relationships. NHSTs should involve their workforce in developing flu vaccination approaches.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesState MedicineEnglandHumansImmunization ProgramsVaccinationVaccination RefusalInfluenza VaccinesDeclinationHealthcare worker flu vaccinationNational Health Service (NHS)Opt-out

Identifiers

PMID32381480
PMCPMC7254052
OpenAlexW3021364259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.