This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Trends in influenza vaccination coverage rates in Germany over five seasons from 2001 to 2006
© Holm et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2007
Received: 22 May 2007
Accepted: 10 December 2007
Published: 10 December 2007
To assess influenza vaccination coverage from 2001 to 2006 in Germany, to understand drivers and barriers to vaccination and to identify vaccination intentions for season 2006/07.
9,990 telephone-based household surveys from age 14 were conducted between 2001 and 2006. Essentially, the same questionnaire was used in all seasons.
The influenza vaccination coverage rate reached 32.5% in 2005/06. In the elderly (≥60 years), the vaccination rate reached 58.9% in 2005/06. In those aged 65 years and older, it was 63.4%. Perceiving influenza as a serious illness was the most frequent reason for getting vaccinated. Thirteen percent of those vaccinated in 2005/06 indicated the threat of avian flu as a reason. The main reason for not getting vaccinated was thinking about it without putting it into practice. The major encouraging factor to vaccination was a recommendation by the family doctor. 49.6% of the respondents intend to get vaccinated against influenza in season 2006/07.
Increasing vaccination rates were observed from 2001 to 2006 in Germany. The threat of avian influenza and the extended reimbursement programs may have contributed to the recent increase.
The severity of influenza and the efficacy of vaccination are well documented in the medical literature. In addition to providing substantial health benefits, vaccination may also be associated with significant economic benefits, not only among the elderly but also among healthy working adults and children. Currently, the German Standing Commission on Immunization (STIKO) recommends influenza vaccination for persons 60 years or older, persons with a chronic disease, persons with an increased professional risk, and if a larger epidemic disease outbreak or pandemic occurs . Some federal states now offer reimbursement of the vaccination to the entire population [2, 3]. Despite ongoing efforts by policy makers, physicians and other health care providers, influenza vaccination rates are rarely sufficient to reduce the enormous disease burden.
The WHO states that the risk of a new pandemic is on its highest level since the last pandemic in 1968 . This situation stresses the importance of high immunisation coverage rates in the population.
Previous papers have reported influenza vaccination coverage rates in Germany based on cross-sectional data analyses [5–9]. We have data available for five consecutive seasons and are therefore able to extend the usual cross-sectional approach and to measure potential correlations and to analyse time trends in a consistent dataset.
This paper aims to analyse influenza vaccination coverage rates and related trends over five vaccination seasons in Germany, with a special focus on high-risk group coverage. The second objective is to understand the determinants for being or not being vaccinated, to describe the drivers and barriers to vaccination and to identify vaccination intentions for season 2006/07. In this context, we examine whether the threat of avian influenza has had an impact on vaccination coverage.
This survey is part of an ongoing international assessment of influenza immunisation uptake in Europe (France, Great Britain, Italy, Spain and Germany). During five influenza seasons, 2001/02, 2002/03, 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 a population-based telephone survey was conducted in December among German households representative of the population. The survey included persons aged 14 years and older. The agreement of the interviewees was asked at the beginning of the call. There was no study intervention and the anonymity of the participants was guaranteed. Therefore, no ethical approval was required. Data from official national sources were used as a basis for quota which allowed ensuring the representativeness of the actual respondents.
Four target groups based on national recommendations were specified .
- Individuals aged 60 years or older
- Individuals who suffer from a chronic illness
- Individuals who work in the medical field
- Composite target group (individuals aged 60 years or older or who suffer from a chronic illness or who work in the medical field)
According to the German Standing Commission on Immunization (STIKO), the group of chronic illness sufferers is defined as children, adolescences and adults suffering from chronic diseases of respiratory organs, chronic cardiovascular or liver diseases, as well as nephropathies and diabetes or other metabolic disorders .
The survey questions were presented in an earlier publication . In the latest season, 2005/06, questions on influenza pandemics and avian influenza were added.
Sample weights were applied to correct for small deviations from the age and gender quota requested and the annual datasets were pooled. Statistical evaluation used SPSS® version 13 for Windows. Bivariate associations of categorical variables were assessed using the Chi squared test. A Chi squared test for trends was used to assess time trends. In the case of continuous variables, differences of means were tested using one-way ANOVA. For all statistical tests, two-sided p ≤ 0.05 was used as the level of statistical significance. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CI) were reported as appropriate. Due to the descriptive nature of this data, no correction for multiple testing was made. Predictor variables with strong associations were considered candidates for multivariable analysis and logistic regression was used to identify independent correlates of the outcome of interest, i.e. vaccination coverage.
Overview of sample
Mean age (years) (95%CI)
46.7 (45.9; 47.5)
47.0 (46.2; 47.8)
46.9 (46.0; 47.7)
47.3 (46.5; 48.1)
47.5 (46.7; 48.3)
47.1 (46.7; 47.4)
47.7% (45.5%; 49.9%)
47.8% (45.6%; 50.0%)
47.7% (45.5%; 49.9%)
47.8% (45.6%; 50.0%)
47.8% (45.6%; 50.0%)
47.8% (46.8%; 48.8%)
Age ≥ 60 years 1 (95%CI)
28.9% (26.9%; 30.9%)
29.6% (27.6%; 31.6%)
29.6% (27.6%; 31.6%)
30.7% (28.7%; 32.7%)
30.6% (28.6%; 32.6%)
29.9% (29.0%; 30.8%)
Work in the medical field 2 (95%CI)
6.8% (5.6%; 7.8%)
6.4% (5.3%; 7.5%)
6.4% (5.3%; 7.5%)
7.2% (6.1%; 8.3%)
7.3% (6.2%; 8.4%)
6.8% (6.3%; 7.3%)
Chronic illness 3 (95%CI)
23.3% (21.4%; 25.1%)
24.2% (22.3%; 26.1%)
22.8% (20.9%; 24.5%)
23.4% (22.3%; 24.5%)
Target group 1 or 2 or 3 (95%CI)
46.2% (44.0%; 48.4%)
47.4% (45.2%; 49.6%)
47.1% (44.9%; 49.3%)
46.9% (45.6%; 48.2%)
Vaccination coverage rate
With respect to the coming winter of 2006/07, 49.6% of the respondents intend to get vaccinated against influenza (Fig. 1). In season 2005/06 47.9% of the German population intended to get vaccinated.
In the season 2005/06, the proportion of vaccinated persons who had also been vaccinated in the past increased to 29%, the highest rate in this time series (minimum, 20% in season 2002/03; p for trend across seasons <0.001). The proportion of first time immunisations remained essentially stable over time and was 4% in season 2005/06. In contrast, the proportion of persons who had been vaccinated in the past, but not in this season, as well as the proportion of persons who had never been vaccinated before reached minimums of 20% and 48%, respectively, in 2005/06 (p for trend across seasons, 0.131 and 0.002, respectively).
Vaccination coverage in target groups
Influences on vaccination coverage
Pooled data from the first four seasons show a higher vaccination rate among households with few children, a low educational level, and low income. This was confirmed in the 2005/06 data where even further increases were observed. An increase in vaccination rate was also observed among very high-income people, but remained stable for middle size incomes in season 2005/06.
Likelihood of vaccination coverage in target groups
Age (<60*/≥60 yrs)
OR (95% CI)
4.3 (3.5; 5.3)
6.1 (4.9; 7.7)
3.8 (3.1; 4.7)
6.1 (4.9; 7.5)
5.5 (4.5; 6.8)
Work in the medical field (yes/no*)
OR (95% CI)
0.8 (0.6; 1.3)
0.5 (0.3; 0.8)
0.9 (0.6; 1.4)
0.9 (0.6; 1.3)
0.7 (0.5; 1.1)
Chronic illness (yes/no*)
OR (95% CI)
2.5 (2.0; 3.1)
3.6 (2.9; 4.5)
3.0 (2.4; 3.7)
Combined target group (age, work in medical field and chronic illness) (yes/no*)
OR (95% CI)
3.6 (2.9; 4.5)
5.2 (4.2; 6.5)
4.5 (3.6; 5.5)
Age 60 or older and chronic illness were independent significant predictors of vaccination (unadjusted OR in 2005/06: 5.5). If only persons below the retirement age (65 years) were included, an increased coverage rate in healthcare workers became visible, and became significant in season 2004/05 (multivariate adjusted OR in 2004/05: 1.5), but no other significant effects were observed for this target group. In the chronically ill, adjusting for age decreased the odds ratio of being vaccinated. These were the only substantial effects of multivariate adjustment, i.e. all other odds ratios remained substantially unchanged. Of the regression covariates not representing target groups, higher household income was significantly associated with a lower vaccination rate. No independent associations with gender or level of education were detected.
Drivers and barriers for vaccination
Ranking of reasons for and against vaccination
Reason for getting vaccinated – rank (%)
Because influenza is a serious illness and I did not want to get it
My family doctor/nurse advised me to do it
So that I do not pass influenza bug to my family and friends
Reasons for not getting vaccinated (among those never vaccinated) – rank (%)
I thought about it, but I did not end up getting vaccinated
I do not think I am very likely to catch the flu
It is not a serious enough illness
My family doctor has never recommended it to me
My pharmacist has never recommended it to me
I have never considered it before
The most common response from those never vaccinated before was thinking about it without putting it into practice (Tab. 3). Not liking needles/injections was commonly reported (31% in 2005/06). Being against vaccination was considered a less important barrier (16% in 2005/06). Persons previously vaccinated but not in the current season (2005/06), said that they did not feel concerned (46%) or they did not think or about getting vaccinated/they forgot (36%).
Knowledge about influenza and vaccination from 2001 to 2006 (%)
You can catch influenza even if you are vaccinated against it
If you catch influenza after having had the vaccine, the infection is less severe
The side effects associated with the vaccine (fever, headache, etc.) are acceptable
It is important to get the influenza vaccine each year
The influenza vaccine is not useful if you are in good health
If you have the vaccine you will not catch influenza
The influenza vaccine will protect me in case of avian influenza/influenza pandemic (2005/06)
The survey also shows that a recommendation by the family doctor, or knowing more about the efficacy and tolerability of the vaccine or about the disease would encourage many people to get vaccinated. Moreover, reimbursement or a cheaper price of the vaccine might significantly change the level of influenza coverage in Germany.
In Germany, the overall vaccination rate increased significantly in season 2005/06 compared to season 2004/05. The introduction of full reimbursement of vaccination in the entire population by some insurers may have had a direct influence on the increased vaccination rates . Moreover, Germany has been particularly active in terms of media coverage on avian influenza and the possible shortage of antiviral agents. This has increased the population's awareness of pandemic risks and may have influenced vaccination coverage rates. The attention on pandemics and avian influenza may also have encouraged more doctors to recommend vaccination. The actual impact of these potential influences requires further study.
The overall vaccination rate in Europe was 26.5% in season 2005/06. Thus, the vaccination rate in Germany, at 32.5%, was above the European average in this year like in the previous seasons . Our observations on immunisation uptake in the German population are consistent with findings from similar studies performed in Germany [10, 6, 11].
Vaccination rate differences across age were distinct. Older age and adolescence were associated with higher rates of vaccination. In season 2005/06 the uptake was higher for all age groups (Fig. 3). The increase is very clear in the age group above 60 years, which seems to confirm an effect of the vaccination campaigns. Important increases in the population below the age of 60 may be explained by the extension of reimbursement of influenza vaccination .
Another factor affecting vaccination rate is having a chronic disease. Working in the medical field in Germany did not seem to encourage vaccination. Earlier publications on influenza coverage rates note a low coverage in health care workers in Germany [5, 12–15]. Leitmeyer and colleagues found a vaccination rate of 22% in season 2001/02 and 26% in season 2003/04 in 20 hospitals . Hallauer and Neuschaefer-Rube found a vaccination rate of 8.4% in season 2001/02 in 25 hospitals . Buchholz and colleagues reported a coverage level of 11.6% among hospital staff in 2000/01 . In comparison, we found a range between 13% and 27% in the population between 2001 and 2006.
Over the last 5 years, most of the vaccinated believed that influenza is a serious illness they do not want to get. The non-vaccinated were thinking about it but never put it into practice, most likely because they did not think they were very likely to catch the flu. Those previously vaccinated but not in the current season (2005/06) said they did not feel concerned, had not thought about it, or simply forgot. The data confirms that the major encouraging factor to vaccination is a recommendation from the family doctor or nurse. This finding was confirmed in other publications [5, 8, 9, 11, 16].
Of the 2005/06 respondents, 49.6% intend to get vaccinated in season 2006/07. The gap between intent to get vaccinated and actual vaccination was 15–20% over the years. Hence, there is potential to increase vaccination coverage rates in Germany in the future. To achieve vaccine uptake approaching vaccination intention (49.6%), activation of the correct drivers and dealing with the vaccination barriers is to be further implemented in Germany.
Telephone interviews have been used on several occasions to study the vaccination rate in Germany [5, 6, 8, 9, 11]. The main advantage of telephone interviews is a potentially high response rate obtained in an affordable and fast manner. The selection process based on random drawing of telephone numbers has been shown to be of high quality .
Several restrictions of the present evaluation are recognized. The most important potential reason for selection bias despite correct sampling is non response. However, comparison of face-to-face, mailed and telephone surveys addressing health-related issues, found only small differences between modes of administration and little non-response effects with respect to prevalence estimates [18, 19]. Non-response in telephone surveys was found to be less content-oriented than in mailed surveys . Furthermore, bias due to different sociodemographic characteristics of persons not reachable by telephone affected reports of illness and related use of medical services only slightly, provided that the general population was addressed and telephone coverage was at least 90% [20, 21]. These published findings support the validity of our approach, although we had no means to independently confirm self-reported vaccination status.
The limitations of the present data collection were described in greater detail in an earlier publication . An increasing problem is the use of wireless telephones. For example, it was shown in the US that people with landlines had a higher odds (1.27) of being vaccinated than those with only access to wireless telephones . If this is believed to be similar in Germany we might have slightly over-estimated the vaccination rate.
The WHO considers the current influenza pandemic risk to be on its highest level . Efforts should be made at all national and international levels to increase the coverage according to the WHO objectives (i.e. 50% vaccination coverage to be reached in the elderly in 2006 and 75% in 2010) . German has managed to meet the goal as the vaccination rate in the elderly ≥60 of age has reached nearly 60% and 49% on average in all high-risk people. Nonetheless there are still major efforts to be done to reach the 2010 objectives.
This study was made possible by an unrestricted research grant from Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Lyon, France. A special thank to Bertrand Verwee, Christine Pilet from Sanofi Pasteur, and to Matthias Schwenkglenks from the European Center of Pharmaceutical Medicine, Basel, Switzerland, for their comments on the study and on the analysis of the data.
- RKI: Influenza. RKI-Ratgeber Infektionskrankheiten – Merkblätter für ÄrzteZielgruppen der Impfung (laut Empfehlungen der STIKO). 2006, (accessed 1 Jun 06), [http://www.rki.de/cln_048/nn_200120/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Merkblaetter/Ratgeber__Mbl__Influenza.html]Google Scholar
- Sozialministerium: Bekanntmachung des Sozialministeriums über öffentlich empholene Schutzimpfungen. Vom 13. November 2001 - Az: 52-5423-1.1 - Baden-Württemberg. 2001Google Scholar
- Krankenkassen: Zahlt meine Kasse für die Grippeschutzimpfung? www.krankenkassen.de (accessed 21 Sept 2006). 2006Google Scholar
- WHO: Current WHO phase of pandemic alert - November 2005. 2006, (accessed 1 Jun 06), [http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/index.html]Google Scholar
- Rehmet S, Ammon A, Pfaff G, Bocter N, Petersen LR: Cross-sectional study on influenza vaccination, Germany, 1999-2000. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002, 8 (12): 1442-1447.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Wiese-Posselt M, Leitmeyer K, Hamouda O, Bocter N, Zollner I, Haas W, Ammon A: Influenza vaccination coverage in adults belonging to defined target groups, Germany, 2003/2004. Vaccine. 2006, 24 (14): 2560-2566. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.12.020.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Muller D, Wutzler P, Szucs TD: Influenza vaccination coverage rates in Germany a population-based cross-sectional analysis of the seasons 2002/2003 and 2003/2004. Med Klin (Munich). 2005, 100 (1): 6-13. 10.1007/s00063-005-1113-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Szucs TD, Wahle K, Müller D: [Influenza vaccination in Germany. A population-based cross-sectional analysis of three seasons between 2002 and 2005]. 2006, 101 (7): 537-545. [Article in German]Google Scholar
- Szucs TD, Muller D: Influenza vaccination coverage rates in five European countries-a population-based cross-sectional analysis of two consecutive influenza seasons. Vaccine. 2005, 23 (43): 5055-5063. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.06.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Robert Koch-Institute: Teilnahme an Influenza- und Pneumokokken-Schutzimfung. Epidemiologisches Bull. 2002, 16: 123-131.Google Scholar
- Kroneman M, van Essen GA, John Paget W: Influenza vaccination coverage and reasons to refrain among high-risk persons in four European countries. Vaccine. 2006, 24 (5): 622-628.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Leitmeyer K, Buchholz U, Kramer M, Schenkel K, Stahlhut H, Köllstadt M, Haas W, Meyer C: Influenza vaccination in German health care workers: effects and findings after two rounds of a nationwide awareness campaign. Vaccine. 2006, 24 (47-48): 7003-7008. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.04.040.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hallauer JF, Neuschaefer-Rube N: Influenza vaccination of hospital staff in Germany: a five-year survey on vaccination coverage and policies: identified deficits in influenza immunisation campaigns for hospital employees. Soz Praventivmed. 2005, 50 (1): 38-44. 10.1007/s00038-004-3103-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kroneman M, Paget WJ, van Essen GA: Influenza vaccination in Europe: an inventory of strategies to reach target populations and optimise vaccination uptake. Euro Surveill. 2003, 8 (6): 130-138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Buchholz U: Überraschende Defizite in deutschen Krankenhäusern. Dt Aerzteblatt. 2002, 99: A2460-1.Google Scholar
- Kamal KM, Madhavan SS, Amonkar MM: Determinants of adult influenza and pneumonia immunization rates. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2003, 43 (3): 403-411. 10.1331/154434503321831120.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide To Their Development And Use. 1995, Oxford, New York , Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
- Marcus AC, Crane LA: Telephone surveys in public health research. Med Care. 1986, 24: 97-112. 10.1097/00005650-198602000-00002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- O'Toole BI, Battistutta D, Long A, Crouch K: A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: mail, telephone and personal home interview. Am J Epidemiol. 1986, 124 (2): 317-328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fowler FJ, Gallagher PM, Stringfellow VL, Zaslavsky AM, Thompson JW, Cleary PD: Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members. Med Care. 2002, 40 (3): 190-200. 10.1097/00005650-200203000-00003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ford ES: Characteristics of survey participants with and without a telephone: findings from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998, 51 (1): 55-60. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00225-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Blumberg SJ, Luke JV, Cynamon ML: Telephone coverage and health survey estimates: evaluating the need for concern about wireless substitution. Am J Public Health. 2006, 96 (5): 926-931. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.057885.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- WHO: Resolution of the World Health Assembly WHA 56.19, Prevention and control of influenza pandemics and annual epidemics, 56th WHA, 10th plenary meeting, 28 May, 2003. 2003Google Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/7/144/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.