Abstract
Background: Care home staff’s (CHS’s) influenza vaccination rate in England is 30%–40%, below the 75% WHO recommendation. We describe the effectiveness of a theory-informed and feasibility-tested intervention (in-home clinics; posters/videos to address vaccination hesitancy and care home financial incentives for uptake) to improve CHS vaccination rates.
Method: Recruited care homes in England with CHS vaccination rates <40% were randomised at the home level for intervention or control. Assuming a change in CHS vaccinated from 55% to 75%, 20% attrition, and 90% power, we required 39 homes per arm. Monthly data were collected throughout flu season. The difference in vaccination rates between the arms was compared using the intention-to-treat principle and a random effect logistic regression model.
Findings: The mean % vaccination rate was 28.6% in control (n = 35) and 32.7% in intervention (n = 35) [odds ratio (OR) = 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68–0.4, P = .435]. In a sub-analysis, including only homes receiving at least one clinic, control was 28.6% (n = 35) and intervention was 41.7% (n = 23) (OR = 2.08, 95% CI: 0.67–2.70, P = .045).
Interpretation: No effect on vaccination status was demonstrated. Within homes receiving clinics, a significant increase was observed. Process evaluation evidence suggests that starting 3 months into the influenza season partially explains this. Further evaluation initiating FluCare earlier is warranted.
Method: Recruited care homes in England with CHS vaccination rates <40% were randomised at the home level for intervention or control. Assuming a change in CHS vaccinated from 55% to 75%, 20% attrition, and 90% power, we required 39 homes per arm. Monthly data were collected throughout flu season. The difference in vaccination rates between the arms was compared using the intention-to-treat principle and a random effect logistic regression model.
Findings: The mean % vaccination rate was 28.6% in control (n = 35) and 32.7% in intervention (n = 35) [odds ratio (OR) = 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68–0.4, P = .435]. In a sub-analysis, including only homes receiving at least one clinic, control was 28.6% (n = 35) and intervention was 41.7% (n = 23) (OR = 2.08, 95% CI: 0.67–2.70, P = .045).
Interpretation: No effect on vaccination status was demonstrated. Within homes receiving clinics, a significant increase was observed. Process evaluation evidence suggests that starting 3 months into the influenza season partially explains this. Further evaluation initiating FluCare earlier is warranted.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 246–257 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Journal of Public Health |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 30 Mar 2025 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2025 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Keywords
- employees
- influenza vaccination
- long-term care facilities
- nursing homes
- residential homes
- social care
- staff
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver