Orted awareness of vaccines against swine flu among 47 of studied school

Orted awareness of vaccines against swine flu among 47 of studied school students.36 Notwithstanding low awareness in our study, most respondents, when asked about pandemic influenza vaccines, reported them as potentially helpful in preventing swine flu. Problems or side effects of the vaccine were mostly localized and seldom reported as a barrier to vaccine uptake. This is unlike studies from other countries9,10,37 or studies in India among health care workers38,39 where perceived side effects from the vaccine were reported as a deterrent to influenza vaccination intention. Although for the majority a vaccine with fewer side effects was preferred, the finding that for some, a localized reaction or physical sensation after vaccination was an indicator of vaccine efficacy and hence desirable, was unique to our study. It is also interesting to note that some considered an injection as less invasive than a nasal vaccine. It was said that “one does not feel 6-MethoxybaicaleinMedChemExpress 6-Methoxybaicalein anything or one feels good” after taking an injection, while nasal vaccines were perceived to have many more potential side effects. Fear of injections was noted by just a few and concerns about re-use of needles for injectable vaccines were reported largely in the urban middleincome area. Study findings show a majority of the community preferred injectable compared to nasal vaccines. AKB-6548 site Excessive, oftenunnecessary use of injections has been documented in India40 and in other parts of Asia.41,42 The placebo effect offered by injections has provided an argument for widely using injections in India and is often demanded by patients. A study by Greenhalgh43 in 1987 questioned blind faith in injections, and our findings suggest that these perceptions continue to hold true. While inactivated injectable vaccines are required for special groups, live-attenuated vaccines offer practical advantages for control of pandemics among the general population in a country as highly populated as India. They are easier to administer and easier to produce larger quantities at lower cost.20 Our findings suggest lack of community familiarity, rather than confidence, with this relatively new form of vaccine administration. Respondents from the urban middle-income area were more aware of nasal vaccines and more likely to consider them as the safer vaccine. Thus, gaining public support is not likely to pose a problem if implemented with effective communication and engagement. The success of the oral polio vaccine campaign in India demonstrates good prospects for widespread public acceptance of this new form of vaccine administration. Paterson and Larson recommend public engagement by building trust and learning about public concerns to be addressed,44 and by communicating openly, honestly and proactively with the public and other stakeholders.45 Our study identified the following key concepts that study communities attributed to the vaccine they preferred, either nasal or injectable, that should be well-understood and convincing, namely, the: ability of the vaccine to spread to all parts of the body and immediacy of effect. Properties of the vaccine itself ?whether it was live attenuated or inactivated ?were never mentioned spontaneously or questioned by any respondents. It is likely not a distinction of practical significance for respondents. Findings suggest a blurring of urban-rural distinctions in the rapidly urbanizing Pune district. Notwithstanding highest awareness and vaccine uptake in the urban middle-inc.Orted awareness of vaccines against swine flu among 47 of studied school students.36 Notwithstanding low awareness in our study, most respondents, when asked about pandemic influenza vaccines, reported them as potentially helpful in preventing swine flu. Problems or side effects of the vaccine were mostly localized and seldom reported as a barrier to vaccine uptake. This is unlike studies from other countries9,10,37 or studies in India among health care workers38,39 where perceived side effects from the vaccine were reported as a deterrent to influenza vaccination intention. Although for the majority a vaccine with fewer side effects was preferred, the finding that for some, a localized reaction or physical sensation after vaccination was an indicator of vaccine efficacy and hence desirable, was unique to our study. It is also interesting to note that some considered an injection as less invasive than a nasal vaccine. It was said that “one does not feel anything or one feels good” after taking an injection, while nasal vaccines were perceived to have many more potential side effects. Fear of injections was noted by just a few and concerns about re-use of needles for injectable vaccines were reported largely in the urban middleincome area. Study findings show a majority of the community preferred injectable compared to nasal vaccines. Excessive, oftenunnecessary use of injections has been documented in India40 and in other parts of Asia.41,42 The placebo effect offered by injections has provided an argument for widely using injections in India and is often demanded by patients. A study by Greenhalgh43 in 1987 questioned blind faith in injections, and our findings suggest that these perceptions continue to hold true. While inactivated injectable vaccines are required for special groups, live-attenuated vaccines offer practical advantages for control of pandemics among the general population in a country as highly populated as India. They are easier to administer and easier to produce larger quantities at lower cost.20 Our findings suggest lack of community familiarity, rather than confidence, with this relatively new form of vaccine administration. Respondents from the urban middle-income area were more aware of nasal vaccines and more likely to consider them as the safer vaccine. Thus, gaining public support is not likely to pose a problem if implemented with effective communication and engagement. The success of the oral polio vaccine campaign in India demonstrates good prospects for widespread public acceptance of this new form of vaccine administration. Paterson and Larson recommend public engagement by building trust and learning about public concerns to be addressed,44 and by communicating openly, honestly and proactively with the public and other stakeholders.45 Our study identified the following key concepts that study communities attributed to the vaccine they preferred, either nasal or injectable, that should be well-understood and convincing, namely, the: ability of the vaccine to spread to all parts of the body and immediacy of effect. Properties of the vaccine itself ?whether it was live attenuated or inactivated ?were never mentioned spontaneously or questioned by any respondents. It is likely not a distinction of practical significance for respondents. Findings suggest a blurring of urban-rural distinctions in the rapidly urbanizing Pune district. Notwithstanding highest awareness and vaccine uptake in the urban middle-inc.