Elsevier

Vaccine

Volume 33, Issue 38, 11 September 2015, Pages 4886-4891
Vaccine

Dutch influenza vaccination rate drops for fifth consecutive year

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.07.052Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We examined the prevalence and trend of the influenza vaccination-rate of the at-risk population from 2008 to 2013.

  • For the fifth subsequent year, we notice a lowering trend of the vaccination rate in the Dutch population at risk.

  • The influenza vaccination rate of the overall at risk group decreased significantly from 71.5% in 2008, to 59.6% in 2013.

  • The difference of 11.9% was gradual over the years (mean yearly decrease 2.4%).

  • The decrease was seen in all specified groups, but mainly among patients aged 60–65 years (mean yearly decrease 3.3%).

Abstract

Aim

To determine the prevalence and trend of the influenza vaccination-rate of the overall target population in the period 2008–2013, with a specific focus on groups at risk such as patients with cardiovascular diseases, lung diseases, diabetes and aged 60 years and older.

Methods

In an observational longitudinal study electronic medical records data from the Dutch representative network of general practices, LINH, were analyzed. For each influenza vaccination season, 2008–2013, the number of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients at risk are compared by chi-square tests (χ2) for linear trends, linear-by-linear association. The level of significance was set at p < 0.001 based on the large number of available records.

Results

The influenza vaccination rate of the overall at risk group decreased significantly from 71.5% in the 2008 season, to 59.6% in the 2013 vaccination season. The difference of 11.9% was gradual over the years, with a mean decrease of 2.4% per year. The decrease was seen in all specified groups at risk, but was mainly among patients aged 60–65 years (mean yearly decrease of 3.3%).

Conclusion

For the fifth subsequent year, we notice a lowering trend of the influenza vaccination rate in the population at risk. Reports in the mass media on questioning the effectiveness of the vaccination program may have been an influence; as well as the relatively light outbreaks of influenza in the past years, which may have affected the sense of urgency. The gradual decrease in vaccination rates over recent years requires further research and a public health debate is needed on the usefulness and necessity of the vaccination program.

Introduction

Annual vaccination can prevent influenza in the at-risk population effectively, and vaccination programs have therefore been provided in a number of countries. Influenza vaccination prevents the disease and its consequences in the most vulnerable populations such as the elderly, those with diabetes, cardiovascular or pulmonary conditions [1], [2], [3]. WHO-guidance indicates developed countries should aim to achieve 75% influenza vaccine coverage in older people, while the European Union Council (EC) advises vaccination in 75% of the at-risk population [4], [5].

In several countries monitoring programs have been established to obtain data on the reach of vaccination programs in terms of numbers needed to vaccinate and the vaccination rate of the at-risk population. Box 1 describes the Dutch influenza vaccination and monitoring program. With the results of monitoring programs, it is also possible to estimate the spending of public funds in implementing vaccination programs [6]. Influenza vaccination rates differ widely between countries, figures found in literature vary from about 40% to about 75% of the target population [1], [2], [7], [8], [9]. Uptake rates have been found to be associated with patient level issues (moreover, specific at-risk groups respond differently, and flu shot acceptance is related to multi-morbidity and older age) as well as organizational factors (like reminders or use of information pamphlets) [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].

Monitoring vaccination rates is an integral part of vaccination programs. The actual numbers played an important role in the public debate [16], [17], [18], [19] that developed following the outbreak of Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus (colloquially referred to as “Swine flu”) and its vaccination campaign in 2009 [20], [21]. As in other countries, in The Netherlands seasonal immunization programs were supplemented with extra vaccinations to mitigate the transmission of the A(H1N1)pdm09 virus [21], [22], [23]. Initially, the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus was expected to lead to increased morbidity and mortality, but it turned out that this flu strain was mild [24]. However, public debates were seen in relation to the definition of a pandemic, the effectiveness of any vaccination program, the costs involved, and the way the pandemic was reported in the media [16], [17], [18], [19].

The aim of our study is to describe the trend in influenza vaccination rate over the years 2008 to 2013 overall and in specific target groups of patients with cardiovascular diseases, lung diseases, diabetes and the elderly. Because the number of patients at risk is also varying over the years, in this trend analyses the size of the at risk population is taken into account. This descriptive study retrospectively assesses and compares the characteristics of patients at-risk for influenza and their vaccination state in a large family practice (FP) database representative for the general adult population of The Netherlands.

Section snippets

Design and study population

In an observational longitudinal study, anonymous data from computerized medical record systems (CMRS) in family practices were used to calculate the influenza vaccination rate in the years 2008–2013 overall and for the different main at-risk groups. The family practices participated in a nationally representative network, the Netherlands Information Network of FPs (LINH) and the staff in the family practices routinely record encoded patient information of all patients, using a CMRS [11], [25],

Ethical considerations

Data collection within the LINH network was conducted in accordance with the Dutch legislation on privacy [34] and the Declaration of Helsinki [35]. Each patient record in the database is coded with an anonymous administrative number. The key to this coding number is only in the family practice. According to the Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, obtaining informed consent is not obligatory for observational studies, so no medical ethical committee approval was

Results

Between 2008 and 2013 respectively 56, 72, 69, 68, 61 and 45 family practices could be included in our study, with over 175,000 listed patients per year (Table 1). The total study population (all listed patients) was representative for the Dutch population on patients’ ages and gender.

In the 2008 vaccination season, 30.5% of all patients were identified as being at risk because of having at least one of the chronic conditions or because of their age. This percentage significantly increased to

Discussion

For years, the Dutch influenza vaccination rate in the target population was relatively high compared to international figures. However, since 2008 a downward trend has been identified, resulting in a vaccination rate of 59.6% of the population at risk in 2013. The decrease was seen in all target populations, but mainly the group of the ‘healthy’ elderly. In the meantime the size of the population at risk increased slowly each year.

Despite the availability of safe and effective vaccines, and a

Conclusion

For the fifth subsequent year, there is a lowering trend of the influenza vaccination rate in the population at risk in the Netherlands. Exact causes are unknown. However, in the mass media the effectiveness of the vaccination program is discussed more and more often, and that probably affects patients and healthcare providers in reducing the uptake-rate. Moreover, it is possible that the relatively light outbreaks of seasonal influenza in the past years might have taken away the sense of

Conflict of interest/disclosure statement

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest and no financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the staff at the practices (family physicians and practice assistants) of the National Information Network of GPs (LINH) for their support. This project gave rise to an immense dataflow, so we would like to thank all the members of the LINH project team for their assistance with data collection, handling and cleaning. The study was supported financially by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands [RIVM, Centrum voor

References (43)

  • R.W. Setse et al.

    Influenza vaccination coverage – United States, 2000–2010

    (2011)
  • WHO. Influenza Vaccine use...
  • WHO

    56th World Health Assembly. Prevention and control of influenza pandemics and annual epidemics

    (2003)
  • EU

    Council of the European Union: council recommendation of 22 December 2009 on seasonal influenza vaccination (2009/1019/EU)

    Off J Eur Union

    (2009)
  • M.E. Kroes et al.

    Nationaal programma grieppeventie: het succes van de griepprik

    (2003)
  • A. Loerbroks et al.

    Influenza vaccination coverage among high-risk groups in 11 European countries

    Eur J Public Health

    (2011)
  • M. Kroneman et al.

    Influenza vaccination in Europe: an inventory of strategies to reach target populations and optimise vaccination uptake

    Eur Surveill

    (2003)
  • E. Hak et al.

    Improving influenza vaccination coverage among high-risk patients: a role for computer-supported prevention strategy

    Fam Pract

    (1998)
  • M.R. Gillick et al.

    Influenza vaccination. Are we doing better than we think?

    Arch Intern Med

    (1991)
  • J.M. Nagata et al.

    Social determinants of health and seasonal influenza vaccination in adults ≥65 years: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative data

    BMC Public Health

    (2013)
  • E. Hak et al.

    Effectiveness of a co-ordinated nation-wide programme to improve influenza immunisation rates in The Netherlands

    Scand J Prim Health Care

    (2000)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    IQ healthcare – Radboudumc, PO Box 9101/114 IQ healthcare, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

    2

    Centre for Primary Care – University of Manchester, 7th Floor, Williamson Building, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom.

    View full text