|How to cite this article:
Joob B, Wiwanitkit V. Perception to call for dT and influenza vaccination and cost: A case scenario, Thailand. Ann Trop Med Public Health 2015;8:312-3
|How to cite this URL:
Joob B, Wiwanitkit V. Perception to call for dT and influenza vaccination and cost: A case scenario, Thailand. Ann Trop Med Public Health [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Aug 6];8:312-3. Available from: https://www.atmph.org/text.asp?2015/8/6/312/162621
Vaccination is accepted as a useful primary prevention in public health. Several vaccinations are promoted at present. Different vaccines are proposed in different settings. In Thailand, for the general adult population, there are present calls for diphtheria and tetanus toxoid (dT) and influenza vaccinations. The dT vaccine has just been proposed in 2015 due to the recent epidemic among the migrants from the nearby countries to Thailand, whereas the influenza vaccine has been proposed for many years since the occurrence of large outbreaks of influenza worldwide. Here, the authors report on the observation of perception to call for dT and influenza vaccinations among the personnel of a Thai university. The cost of manipulation has also been studied. At the same period of calling for vaccination (April 2015), among the 240 personnel, all the 240 (100%) personnel received dT vaccination and 66 (27.5%) received influenza vaccination. Considering the cost for manipulation, $48 and $594 were invested for dT and influenza vaccinations, respectively, ($0.2/unit and $9/unit of dT and influenza vaccinations, respectively). Of interest is the fact that the perception on the vaccines seems to depend on the “fashion” or “promotion” in each year. In fact, the media have a great role in pursuing the local people to get vaccinations.  How to set a pertinent perception and concern for vaccination is a question for further studies.
Taha SA, Matheson K, Anisman H. The 2009 H1N1 Influenza pandemic: The role of threat, coping, and media trust on vaccination intentions in Canada. J Health Commun 2013;18:278-90.
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None