title: Why did patients with cardiovascular disease in the Netherlands accept Q fever vaccination?
abstract: This study examines patient's reasons for accepting Q fever vaccination, including risk perception, feelings of doubt, social influence, information-seeking behavior, preventive measures taken, and perceptions regarding received information and governmental action. Data was obtained from exit interviews conducted after Q fever vaccination, between January and April 2011. A total of 413 patients with specific cardiovascular conditions in the Netherlands participated in exit interviews; 70% were older than 60 years. Most reported reasons for accepting Q fever vaccination were: "I am at an increased risk for developing (chronic) Q fever" (69%) and "my general practitioner recommends Q fever vaccination for me" (34%). The majority (86%) reported a high perceived severity of Q fever, and only 6% felt vulnerable to Q fever after vaccination. One-third had doubts about getting vaccinated, primarily related to fears of side effects and practical barriers. Fifty-two percent solicited advice from their social networks; of these, 67% reported influence on their vaccination decision. General practitioners and family were the most reported sources of advice. Thirty percent actively sought information about Q fever vaccination. Twenty-two percent of all respondents had taken other preventive measures, such as avoiding contact with goats and sheep (74%), and cancelling or postponing visits to Q fever-affected areas (36%). Almost one-half of all respondents reported negative feelings regarding governmental action to control Q fever. Significant differences were observed regarding feelings of doubt, information-seeking behavior, perceived vulnerability, preventive measures taken, and perceptions regarding received information and governmental action regarding gender, age, educational level, and/or employment status. Vaccination decision-making may differ among socio-demographic subgroups. When preparing future vaccination campaigns, it is important to obtain greater insight into these differences and take these aspects into account in risk communication strategies by tailoring information to specific target groups.
authors.affiliation: Municipal Public Health Service Rotterdam-Rijnmond, 3000 LP Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.bults@rotterdam.nl
authors.forename: Marloes
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bults
authors.forename: Desirée J M A
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Beaujean
authors.forename: Clementine J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Wijkmans
authors.forename: Aura
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Timen
authors.forename: Jan Hendrik
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Richardus
authors.forename: Hélène A C M
authors.initials: HA
authors.lastname: Voeten
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001428:Bacterial Vaccines / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000276:immunology; D002318:Cardiovascular Diseases / Q000276:immunology*; D005260:Female; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009426:Netherlands; D010342:Patient Acceptance of Health Care / Q000523:psychology*; D011778:Q Fever / Q000517:prevention & control*; D014611:Vaccination / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D001428:Bacterial Vaccines