Influence of sources of information about influenza vaccine on parental attitudes and adolescent vaccine receipt

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographics characteristics of study population

Characteristics	No. (%)
Total	360 (100)
Adolescent Characteristics
Gender
Male	165 (45.8)
Female	195 (54.2)
Race/Ethnicity
White	59 (16.4)
African-American	267 (74.2)
Hispanic	6 (1.7)
Other	28 (7.8)
Grade
6–8^th	213 (59.2)
9–12^th	147 (40.8)
Received influenza vaccine prior fall/winter
Yes	223 (61.9)
No	137 (39.1)
Parent Characteristic
Relation to adolescent
Mother	302 (83.9)
Father	31 (8.6)
Other	27 (7.5)
Study Characteristics
Intervention arm
Arm 1	114 (31.7)
Arm 2	130 (36.1)
Arm 3	116 (32.2)

Table 2. Reported sources of information

Source of information	No. (%)
Physician or Medical Professional	342 (95.0)
Family or Friends	290 (80.6)
Television	278 (77.2)
Advertisement from drug company	207 (57.5)
Internet	183 (50.8)
Newspaper or magazine article	179 (49.7)
Radio	172 (47.8)

Table 3. Association between selected demographics and number of reported sources of information with having received influenza vaccine the prior fall/winter

Variable	Crude Odds Ratio (95% CI)	P-value	Adjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)	P-value
Adolescent Characteristics
Gender
Male	REF		REF
Female	1.5 (1.0–2.4)	0.04	1.3 (0.8–2.2)	0.29
Race/Ethnicity
White	REF		REF
African-American	1.0 (0.6–1.8)	0.97	1.1 (0.5–2.1)	0.85
Hispanic	3.4 (0.4–31.2)	0.27	2.6 (0.2–30.0)	0.43
Other	4.1 (1.3–13.4)	0.02	3.6 (1.0–12.9)	0.05
Grade
6–8^th	1.6 (1.1–2.5)	.03	1.4 (1.1–2.8)	0.02
9–12^th	REF		REF
Parental Characteristics
Relation to adolescent
Mother	1.6 (0.7–3.6)	0.23	1.4 (0.6–3.5)	0.47
Father	1.1 (0.4–3.2)	0.82	1.3 (0.4–4.3)	0.68
Other	REF		REF
Parental attitudes
0–6	REF		REF
7–10	5.8 (3.6–9.3)	<0.01	5.1 (3.1–8.4)	<0.01
Prompt to speak to doctor
No	REF		REF
Yes	2.0 (1.3–3.0)	0.002	1.8 (1.1–3.0)	0.02
Intervention arm
Arm 1	REF		REF
Arm 2	0.5 (0.3–0.9)	0.03	0.7 (0.4–1.2)	0.20
Arm 3	0.6 (0.4–1.1)	0.12	0.6 (0.3–1.2)	0.13
Number of sources of information
0–2	REF		REF
3–7	2.3 (1.4–3.1)	0.03	1.3 (0.8–2.8)	0.12

* Adjusted for adolescent gender, race, grade, respondent's relationship to adolescent, parental attitudes, prompt to speak to doctor, intervention arm, and number of information sources

Figure 1. Simple mediation model for presumed influence of parental attitudes on the association between sources of information and receiving an influenza vaccine the prior fall/winter.

Table 4 Application of Health Belief Model (HBM) and Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) constructs to inform the parent survey

Theoretical Constructs	Items per Construct
Perceived Susceptibility (HBM)	- My child is not very likely to get the flu- A healthy 40-year-old is more likely to get the flu than my child- Compared to other children your child's age, your child is more likely to get the flu
Perceived Severity (HBM)	- Flu is a serious illness
Perceived Barriers (HBM)	- Your child could get sick from the flu vaccine itself
Perceived Benefits (HBM)	- Giving the flu vaccine to children will decrease their parents' time lost from work- Giving the flu vaccine to children decreases their time out of school- Children should be vaccinated against the flu
Social Norms (TRA)	- Most parents I know take their children for the flu vaccine- Most people important to me think I would give my child the flu vaccine