Tetanus Vaccination Status and Vaccine Hesitancy in Amateur Basketball Players (Italy, 2020)

Abstract

Basketball is among the third most popular team sport in Italy. Albeit not usually perceived as being at high risk for tetanus, the Italian legal framework (Law No. 292 of 1963; Presidential Decree 1301/1965) requires tetanus vaccination (TeV) even for amateur practice. Even though some previous reports have suggested a relatively low adherence towards vaccination practice among basketball player, corresponding knowledge, attitudes and practices towards TeV remain largely unknown. Our study specifically investigated such topics in a total of 270 amateur basketball players participating into an internet-based survey by completing a structured questionnaire. Of them, 73.0% had a proper vaccination status, but a third of respondents (33.3%) exhibited some degree of vaccine hesitancy. The average understanding of TeV and tetanus (79.8% with a potential range 0–100) as well as the risk perception for natural infection (63.9% ± 26.6) were quite good. Even though unmotivated fears towards TeV were more scarcely reported (14.0% ± 15.4), they still represented the main reasons for having missed vaccination shots (63.0%). Knowledge status and risk perception for natural infection and TeV were well correlated (R = 0.22 and R = −0.64, respectively). Appropriate TeV status was more likely in respondents not exhibiting vaccine hesitancy (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.114, 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) 0.059–0.225). In turn, vaccine hesitancy was more frequently reported among individuals of male gender (OR 3.148, 95%CI 1.072–9.244), while better formal education (OR 0.065, 95%CI 0.013–0.319) and working in healthcare settings (OR 0.042, 95%CI 0.007–0.265) were characterized as negative effectors. Vaccinations in athletes represent an often overlooked issue, with a considerable lack of available evidence. The results stress the opportunity for appropriate TeV screening programs among amateur athletes and the potential relevance of interventions aimed at raising the perceived significance of TeV in order to cope with a significant share of vaccine-hesitant athletes.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prevention through Monoclonal Antibodies: A Cross-Sectional Study on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Italian Pediatricians

“…Sampling healthcare providers not managing infants and children would substantially compromise the actual representation of the sample, and the eventual reliability of our estimates. Even though the eventual sample size was consistent with our preventive estimates, the present study could only be cautiously generalizable, particularly in Italy, whose medical workforce is otherwise characterized by distinctive regional patterns, as stressed by our analyses [ 88 ].…”

“…When dealing with the effective predictors of the assessed outcomes, even though the Health Belief Model suggests that personal experiences and a rational understanding of a certain health topics (more precisely, an illness or a disease; in this case, RSV infections) and the beliefs in the effectiveness of a recommended health behavior or action will predict the likelihood of adopting that behavior (in this case, the delivery of mAb) [ 54 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 ], our results are only partially consistent, or even somewhat inconsistent with this underlying framework.…”

Invasive Meningococcal Disease and Meningococcal Serogroup B Vaccination in Adults and Their Offspring: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices in Italy (2019)

“…Despite its potential interest, the present article is unfortunately affected by several limitations [ 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 ]. First of all, the present study had a cross-sectional design: by definition, cross-sectional studies have no dimension of time, so they cannot support conclusions on the risk factors of the targeted outcome, nor on causal relationships [ 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 ].…”

“…Despite its potential interest, the present article is unfortunately affected by several limitations [ 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 ]. First of all, the present study had a cross-sectional design: by definition, cross-sectional studies have no dimension of time, so they cannot support conclusions on the risk factors of the targeted outcome, nor on causal relationships [ 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 ]. Without a well-defined dimension of time, cross-sectional studies can be poorly suited for examining conditions of short duration [ 92 , 93 , 94 ]: from this point of view, a cross-sectional design may be well suited for studying the acceptance of vaccine interventions [ 65 , 95 ], as the research would inquire about the overall status of the targeted individuals before the intervention [ 83 , 96 , 97 ], while retrieved information on infectious diseases and associated risk factors should be more cautiously assessed [ 94 , 95 , 98 ].…”

“…Second, our data are reasonably affected by some degree of self-selection bias, an issue substantially shared by all web-based studies [ 52 , 81 , 82 ]. Despite their reliability, proven cost-effectiveness, and turnaround times that are starkly reduced when compared to more conventional approaches, web-based surveys are affected by some sort of “self-selection” of participants, which ultimately leads to the over-sampling of certain sub-groups [ 83 , 84 , 85 ]. Having inquired about the very specific topic of MenB, the oversampling of subjects who were more familiar with the assessed topic is quite reasonable [ 81 ], as suggested by similarly designed cross-sectional studies [ 86 , 87 , 88 ].…”