Parental acceptance of an intranasal vaccine: Example of influenza vaccine

Marien, A.-G.; Hochart, A.; Lagrée, Marion; Diallo, D.; Martinot, Alain; Dubos, Francois

Type de document :

Article dans une revue scientifique: Article original

DOI :

10.1016/j.arcped.2018.11.002

URL permanente :

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12210/58301

Titre :

Parental acceptance of an intranasal vaccine: Example of influenza vaccine

Auteur(s) :

Marien, A.-G. [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Hochart, A. [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Lagrée, Marion [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Diallo, D. [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Martinot, Alain [Auteur]

Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales - ULR 2694 [METRICS]
Dubos, Francois [Auteur]

Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales - ULR 2694 [METRICS]

Titre de la revue :

Archives de pediatrie . organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie

Nom court de la revue :

Archives de Pédiatrie

Numéro :

Pagination :

71-74

Éditeur :

Elsevier

Date de publication :

2019-02

ISSN :

0929-693X

Discipline(s) HAL :

Sciences du Vivant [q-bio]

Résumé en anglais : [en]

Background Influenza vaccination coverage of children with chronic disease is insufficient in France, although a nasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has been approved. Objective We aimed to evaluate the ...
Lire la suite >Background Influenza vaccination coverage of children with chronic disease is insufficient in France, although a nasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has been approved. Objective We aimed to evaluate the acceptance of nasally administered vaccines by parents of children with chronic illness, by comparing LAIV vs. injectable inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) acceptance. Methods We performed a retrospective, observational study (December 2014 to April 2015) including parents of all children vaccinated with the LAIV during the 2013–2014 influenza vaccination campaign at our university hospital. It was an opinion survey on the tolerance and acceptance of the LAIV. Results A standardized evaluation form was completed by 67/79 parents of all children who received the LAIV (mean age: 113 ± 56 months; 64% with a chronic respiratory disease). The parents responded that vaccines in general were important (99%) but only 58% of them accepted the injectable route of administration. Of the 48 parents of children who had received both LAIV and IIV in the past, global opinion (P < 0.0001) and tolerance (P < 0.0001) were better for LAIV. For the future, 81% of parents would prefer LAIV, mainly because of needle absence and/or less painful character, and 18% IIV, mainly because of easier administration or habit. Conclusion The better acceptance of a nasally administrated vaccine could increase vaccination coverage in the future for nasal vaccines.Lire moins >

Langue :

Anglais

Audience :

Internationale

Vulgarisation :

Non

Établissement(s) :

CHU Lille
Université de Lille

Collections :

METRICS : Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales - ULR 2694

Date de dépôt :

2021-12-08T09:53:11Z
2024-04-09T07:51:03Z

Annexes

document
Accès libre
Source du fichier principal
Accéder au document

Numéro de version	Lien	Date de modification
2	20.500.12210/58301*	2024-04-09T07:32:45Z
1	20.500.12210/58301.1	2021-12-08T09:53:11Z

Parental acceptance of an intranasal ...

BibTeX

CSV

Excel

RIS

Annexes

Historique des modifications

Parental acceptance of an intranasal ... BibTeX CSV Excel RIS

Annexes

Historique des modifications

Parental acceptance of an intranasal ...

BibTeX

CSV

Excel

RIS