↓ Skip to main content

Barriers encountered during the implementation of a policy guideline on the vaccination of health care workers during the 2013–2014 measles outbreak in the Netherlands: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers encountered during the implementation of a policy guideline on the vaccination of health care workers during the 2013–2014 measles outbreak in the Netherlands: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1756-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie Jessica Borggreve, Aura Timen

Abstract

In 2013 the Netherlands faced a measles epidemic, during which more than 2600 individuals were infected, including 19 health care workers (HCW). Vaccinating health care workers can lead to benefits on both the individual and public health level, underscoring the need for HCW vaccination. In June of 2013 the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) developed a measles guideline (MG) that advised Dutch hospitals to strengthen their policies concerning measles vaccination of HCWs. A key problem with guidelines, however, is adherence, which can be due to several barriers. The objective of this research was to identify the barriers that Dutch hospital professionals encountered during the implementation of this policy guideline, in order to improve the implementation of similar policies in the future. In-depth interviews (n = 9) were conducted with 12 hospital health care professionals involved with prevention and control of communicable diseases. These participants represented ten different Dutch hospitals located in eight of the twelve different provinces. Participants were asked about their experiences during the 2013-2014 measles epidemic regarding infection prevention measures, including vaccination of HCWs, with a specific focus on barriers to the implementation of the RIVM guideline. The implementation of the MG was impeded by several (types of) barriers. First, barriers were found related to knowledge and attitude, and included lack of agreement, barriers associated with leadership and issues related to evidence-based decision making. Second, barriers related to characteristics of the guideline, mostly related to unclear or missing guideline content. Finally, contextual and social factors such as human and financial resources, belief systems, physical facilities and technical support, and national views on vaccination policies also play an important role in policy implementation. This study has provided valuable insights into the barriers infection prevention specialists encounter during the implementation of new policies concerning vaccination of HCWs in times of a major outbreak. Moreover, this study exposed the complexity and breadth of barriers that are of importance when implementing vaccination policies in the hospital setting. In order to improve the implementation of similar policies in the future, guideline developers and health care providers and administrators alike should aim to eliminate or minimise these identified barriers by taking into account the suggestions made by the authors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 21 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 27 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,482,034
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,024
of 4,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,621
of 389,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#106
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 389,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.