Introduction: Influenza is a major concern for Emergency Medical Services (EMS); EMS workers' (EMS-W) vaccination rates remain low despite promotion. Determinants of vaccination for seasonal influenza (SI) or pandemic influenza (PI) are unknown in this setting.
Hypothesis: The influence of the H1N1 pandemic on EMS-W vaccination rates, differences between SI and PI vaccination rates, and the vaccination determinants were investigated.
Methods: A survey was conducted in 2011, involving 65 Swiss EMS-W. Socio-professional data, self-declared SI/PI vaccination status, and motives for vaccine refusal or acceptation were collected.
Results: Response rate was 95%. The EMS-W were predominantly male (n = 45; 73%), in good health (87%), with a mean age of 36 (SD = 7.7) years. Seventy-four percent had more than six years of work experience. Self-declared vaccination rates were 40% for both SI and PI (PI+/SI+), 19% for PI only (PI+/SI-), 1.6% for SI only (PI-/SI+), and 39% were not vaccinated against either (PI-/SI-). Women's vaccination rates specifically were lower in all categories but the difference was not statistically significant. During the previous three years, 92% of PI+/SI+ EMS-W received at least one SI vaccination; it was 8.3% in the case of PI-/SI- (P = .001) and 25% for PI+/SI- (P = .001). During the pandemic, SI vaccination rate increased from 26% during the preceding year to 42% (P = .001). Thirty percent of the PI+/SI+ EMS-W declared that they would not get vaccination next year, while this proportion was null for the PI-/SI- and PI+/SI- groups. Altruism and discomfort induced by the mask were the main motivations to get vaccinated against PI. Factors limiting PI or SI vaccination included the option to wear a mask, avoidance of medication, fear of adverse effects, and concerns about safety and effectiveness.
Conclusion: Average vaccination rate in this study's EMS-W was below recommended values, particularly for women. Previous vaccination status was a significant determinant of PI and future vaccinations. The new mask policy seemed to play a dual role, and its net impact is probably limited. This population could be divided in three groups: favorable to all vaccinations; against all, even in a pandemic context; and ambivalent with a "pandemic effect." These results suggest a consistent vaccination pattern, only altered by exceptional circumstances.