Factors associated with the transformation of intention into action in influenza vaccination among healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional study
Frontiers in Public Health·
- DOI
- 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1926271
- PMID
- —
- PMCID
- —
- OpenAlex
- W7203650885
- Study type
- Cross-sectional study
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
The findings identify a reported intention-to-action gap in influenza vaccination among the surveyed healthcare professionals. The authors indicate that targeted education and more accessible vaccination services may be relevant areas for addressing this gap, but the abstract does not establish that these measures would be effective.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The study examined the gap between healthcare professionals’ stated intention to receive influenza vaccination and their reported vaccination, and assessed factors associated with this behavior.
Study design
This was a cross-sectional study using an anonymous questionnaire and stratified convenience sampling. Associations were examined with chi-square testing and multivariate logistic regression.
Population and setting
The survey included 547 valid responses from healthcare professionals at a hospital in Chengdu, China. Data were collected from May to June 2025, with respondents reporting on the previous influenza season.
Main findings
Among respondents, 316 reported intending to receive influenza vaccination and 251 reported vaccination during the previous season. Of those intending to be vaccinated, 96 had not been vaccinated; the abstract reports that professional title, department type, influenza and vaccine knowledge, concern about severe adverse reactions, views about vaccination reducing severe influenza, and awareness of accessible hospital vaccination services were associated with vaccination behavior.
Public-health relevance
The findings identify a reported intention-to-action gap in influenza vaccination among the surveyed healthcare professionals. The authors indicate that targeted education and more accessible vaccination services may be relevant areas for addressing this gap, but the abstract does not establish that these measures would be effective.
Important limitations
The cross-sectional design, convenience sampling, single-hospital setting, and self-reported questionnaire data limit interpretation of associations and generalizability. This summary is also limited to the supplied single-article abstract and metadata; the original paper is required for decision-grade assessment of additional limitations and methods.
GIDS interpretation
The article is discoverable under influenza, vaccination, and China, and provides context on reported vaccination intention and behavior among healthcare professionals in one hospital-based survey. It does not provide evidence that surveillance data confirm the study findings or describe a live surveillance signal.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 5 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.