Table 2.

Logistic regression models showing the associations between PCP’s characteristics and participation in the vaccination campaign.

			N	Participants (%)	Non participants (%)	OR	95% CI
Age*						0.70	0.51–0.95
Number of patients in care**						1.44	0.99–2.10
Work organization
Alone			68	44 (64.7)	24 (35.3)	1 (ref)
In association			136	48 (64.7)	88 (35.3)	0.97	0.52–1.81
In group			111	91 (82.0)	20 (18.0)	2.45	1.21–4.97
Actual / past experience as ASL vaccinator
No			131	75 (57.2)	56 (42.8)	1 (ref)
Yes			183	148 (80.9)	35 (19.1)	3.12	1.87–5.21
Training at postgraduate school
No			245	180 (73.5)	65 (26.5)	1 (ref)
Yes			69	42 (60.9)	27 (39.1)	0.54	0.30–0.95
Self-reported competence in pediatric vaccination
No			179	134 (74.9)	45 (25.1)	1 (ref)
Yes			135	88 (65.2)	47 (34.8)	0.62	0.38–1.02
Refresh courses
No			130	89 (68.5)	41 (31.5)	1 (ref)
Yes			185	134 (72.4)	51 (27.6)	1.24	0.75–2.05
PCP vaccination 23/24
No			84	54 (64.3)	30 (35.7)	1 (ref)
Yes			219	168 (76.7)	51 (23.3)	1.94	1.11–3.39

*OR is not adjusted and is expressed per 10-years increase.

**OR is not adjusted and is expressed per 200-patients increase.

ORs are adjusted by age and number of patients in care considered as continuous. ORs are to be considered as compared to the reference category for each variable: “Work alone” for the work organization, “No” for current or previous experience as Asl vaccinator, training about anti-flu vaccination in primary care at postgraduate school, competence in pediatric vaccinations, participation in refresher courses and anti-flu vaccination 23/24 of the PCP.