Abstract: Alternative Vaccination Locations: Who Uses Them and Can They Increase Flu Vaccination Rates? (43rd National Immunization Conference (NIC))

PS98 Alternative Vaccination Locations: Who Uses Them and Can They Increase Flu Vaccination Rates?

Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Grand Hall area
Ateev Mehrotra
Rachel M. Burns
Katherine Harris

Background:
Increasing influenza vaccination coverage is essential to combating influenza. Focusing on increasing vaccination rates in traditional health settings (doctors' offices, hospitals, and public health clinics) may have diminishing returns as many unvaccinated individuals do not have regular contact with the health care system. Therefore, alternative vaccination locations could play an important role.

Objectives:
(1) Describe characteristics of patients who did not receive the influenza vaccine, (2) determine where vaccinated patients received the vaccine and the characteristics of patients vaccinated at different locations, and (3) compare the characteristics of unvaccinated patients with those using alternative locations to identify whether alternative locations are serving populations not being vaccinated at traditional health care sites.

Methods:
Between February 14, 2008 and March 10, 2008, a 25-question questionnaire was administered to a nationally representative, stratified sample of panelists recruited by Knowledge Networks (KN), asking about their influenza vaccine views and experiences, demographic information, and health status.

Results:
Unvaccinated adults (62.1%) were significantly younger, healthier, more likely to be non-White, and less likely to have a personal physician. Among those vaccinated, those vaccinated at work (22.5%) were significantly younger, healthier, higher income earners, more educated, more likely to live in a metropolitan (vs. rural) area, and less likely to have a personal physician compared to those vaccinated at traditional health settings (68.4%). Those vaccinated at a retail store (9.1%) were significantly older, more educated, more likely to be White, more likely to live in a metropolitan area, and less likely to have a personal physician.

Conclusions:
While alternative locations are covering some population segments not captured by the traditional health care system (e.g., younger, working, White individuals in metropolitan areas), they are not serving many other population segments (e.g.,, minority, rural, or lower income patients) that do not regularly interact with the traditional health care system.
See more of: Posters
See more of: Abstracts