Skip to main content
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2007 Mar 1;98(2):105–110. doi: 10.1007/BF03404319

Existe-t-il des barrières organisationnelles à l’accessibilité à la vaccination contre l’influenza et le pneumocoque?

Louise Rousseau 16,26,36,, Maryse Guay 46,56,66, Denis Archambault 26, Zahra El m’mala 16,26,36, Nadia Abdelaziz 26
PMCID: PMC6975684  PMID: 17441532

Abstract

Context

Despite the implementation of a Quebec immunization program against influenza and pneumococcal disease (PQIIP), vaccine coverage has remained low. There have been many studies on personal barriers to vaccination, but few have explored other kinds of barriers.

Objectives

To explore the presence of barriers in relation to the organization of the health care system and to propose recommendations for increasing vaccine coverage.

Methods

Within a mixed protocol, a phone survey of 996 people in the target population and a case study implicating the follow-up of the PQIIP with all the site and actor categories via 43 semi-structured interviews and 4 focus groups were realized. Survey data underwent a descriptive statistical analysis. Qualitative analysis followed the Miles and Huberman approach.

Results

The results indicate the presence of barriers with regard to information accessibility. These include access to: the physicians’ recommendation, knowledge of the efficacy or the security of vaccines, and admissibility of clients to the PQIIP. Organizational barriers were also found to limit access to vaccination, especially in terms of restricted choices of time and location. Coordination and incentives mechanisms are not optimal. Removal of organizational barriers depends more on strategic rather than structural factors.

Conclusion

Addressing organizational barriers should be an important component of strategies aimed at improving vaccine coverage. Public health authorities should focus on strategic management of the information and inter-organizational environment.

Footnotes

Remerciement: Les auteurs remercient le Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec qui a subventionné cette recherche.

References

  • 1.Conseil d’évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec. CETS 98–4 RF. 1998. Coût-efficacité et coût-utilité d’un programme d’immunisation contre le pneumocoque au Québec; pp. 1–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nichol KL, Lind A, Margolis KL, Murdoch M, McFadden R, Hauge M. et coll. The effectiveness of vaccination against influenza in healthy, working adults. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(14):889–93. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199510053331401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Guay M, De Wals P. Institut de la statistique du Québec. 2000. Vaccination contre la grippe dans Enquête sociale et de santé 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Flores J, Douville-Fradet M, Côté L, Guay M, Haché M, Boulianne N. Rapport conjoint de l’Institut de la statistique du Québec et de l’Institut national de santé publique du Québec. 2003. et coll. Enquête québécoise sur les couvertures vaccinales contre l’influenza et le pneumocoque 2001–2002; pp. 1–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Guay M, Valiquette L, Boulianne N, Douville-Fradet M, Landry M, Paré L. Rapport conjoint de l’Institut de la statistique du Québec et de l’Institut national de santé publique du Québec. 2004. et coll. Enquête québécoise sur les couvertures vaccinales contre l’influenza et le pneumocoque 2003–2004; pp. 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Johansen H, Nguyen K, Mao L, Marcoux R, Gao RN, Nair C. La vaccination contre la grippe. Rapports sur la santé. Statistiques Canada. 2004;15(2):35–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Centers for Disease ControlPrevention. Reasons reported by Medicare beneficiaries for not receiving influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations. MMWR. 1996;48(39):886–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gene J, Espinola A, Cabezas C, Boix C, Comin E, Martin F. et coll. Do knowledge and attitudes about influenza and its immunization affect the likelihood of obtaining immunization. Fam Pract Res. 1992;12(1):61–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. Protocole d’immunisation du Québec. Bibliothèque nationale du Québec 2004; chapitre 11.
  • 10.Andrew MK, McNeil S, Merry H. Rockwood K. Rates of influenza vaccination in older adults and factors associated with vaccine use: A secondary analysis of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. BMC Public Health. 2004;4(36):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-4-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Briss PA, Rodewald LE, Hinman AR, Shefer AM, Strikas RA, Bernier RR. et coll. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to improve vaccination coverage in children, adolescents, and adults. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(1S):97–140. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00118-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ndiaye SM. Hopkins DP, Smith SJ, Hinman AR, Briss PA, Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Methods for conducting systematic reviews of targeted vaccination strategies for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(5S):238–47. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Willis BC, Ndiaye SM, Hopkins DP, Shefer A. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Improving influenza, pneumococcal polysaccha-ride, and hepatitis B vaccination coverage among adults aged >65 years at high risk. MMWR. 2005;54(RR-5):1–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Doyle DM, Dauterive R, Chuang KH, Ellrodt AG. Translating evidence into practice: Pursuing perfection in pneumoccocal vaccination in a rural community. Respir Care. 2001;46(11):1258–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Moss N. An organization-environment framework for assessing program implementation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 1983;6:153–64. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(83)90029-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.De Wals P, Drapeau J. Study of immunization promotion against influenza in nursing homes and long term care facilities in Québec. Can J Public Health. 1996;87(5):305–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kurger RA. Focus Group. A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.SOM. SOM recherches et sondages. 2004. Sondage sur la campagne de vaccination contre la grippe; pp. 1–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Russell ML, Yau A, Baptiste B, Rowntree C, Robb J, Hill S. Improving the public health/physician partnership for influenza vaccination. Can J Public Health. 2005;96(2):155–58. doi: 10.1007/BF03403681. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Eisenhardt K. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Acad Management Review. 1989;14(1):57–74. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4279003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Moe TC. The new economics of organisation. Am J Pol Sci. 1984;28(4):739–77. doi: 10.2307/2110997. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zimmerman RK, Raymund M, Janosky JE, Norwalk MP, Fine MS. Sensitivity and specificity of patient self-report of influenza and pneumo-coccal polysaccharide vaccinations among elderly outpatients in diverse patient care strata. Vaccine. 2003;21:1486–91. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00700-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES