Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: A comprehensive critical appraisal of the literature

Open access
Dini, Guglielmo, Toletone, Alessandra, Sticchi, Laura, Orsi, Andrea, Bragazzi, Nicola Luigi, Durando, Paolo·2018·Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

Abstract

Influenza imposes a significant burden worldwide from the healthcare and socio-economic standpoints. This is also due to suboptimal vaccination coverage among the target population, even though immunization is recommended since many years and still remains the fundamental tool for its prevention. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of exposure to respiratory pathogens compared with the general population, including flu, with potential threat for their health and for patients' safety. Nevertheless, despite recommendation for immunization of this work-category in most of Western Countries, inadequate flu vaccine uptake is reported during the last decade in the European area. According to recent systematic reviews on this topic, the main determinants of vaccine acceptance among HCWs have been largely investigated and include desire for self-protection and to protect family rather than absolute disease risk or desire to protect patients, among the main drivers. On the other hand, concerns regarding safety of the vaccines resulted in decreased vaccine uptake. Moreover, influenza vaccine hesitancy among HCWs was also associated with several issues such as low risk perception, denial of the social benefit of influenza vaccination, low social pressure, lack of perceived behavioral control, negative attitude toward vaccines, not having been previously vaccinated against influenza, not having previously had influenza, lack of adequate influenza-specific knowledge, lack of access to vaccination facilities, and socio-demographic variables. The topic of influenza vaccination among HCWs is challenging, full of ethical issues. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of interventions for improving vaccine uptake among HCWs found that combined strategies were more effective than isolate approaches. Mandatory policies are currently under debate in several countries. High quality studies would help policy-makers and stake-holders to shape evidence-based initiatives and programs to improve the control of influenza.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/21645515.2017.1348442

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Metadata

Authors
Dini, G., Toletone, A., Sticchi, L., Orsi, A., Bragazzi, N. L., & Durando, P.
Venue
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
Published
2017-10-20
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
772-789
ISSN
  • 2164-5515 (ISSN-L)
  • 2164-554X
OpenAlex
W2744654677
Cited by
293
References
60
FWCI
21.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: A comprehensive critical appraisal of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/21645515.2017.1348442
The paper
Dini, G., Toletone, A., Sticchi, L., Orsi, A., Bragazzi, N. L., & Durando, P. (2018). Influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: A comprehensive critical appraisal of the literature. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.1348442

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.