Factors associated with Q fever vaccination in Australian wildlife rehabilitators

Karen O Mathews; Jacqueline M Norris; David Phalen; Nick Malikides; Cathie Savage; Paul A Sheehy; Katrina L Bosward

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.10.082

Factors associated with Q fever vaccination in Australian wildlife rehabilitators

Vaccine. 2023 Jan 4;41(1):201-210. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.10.082. Epub 2022 Nov 21.

Authors

Karen O Mathews¹, Jacqueline M Norris², David Phalen¹, Nick Malikides, Cathie Savage, Paul A Sheehy¹, Katrina L Bosward³

Affiliations

¹ The University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, Camden, NSW, Australia.
² The University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, Camden, NSW, Australia; Sydney Institute for Infectious Diseases, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, New South Wales, Australia.
³ The University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, Camden, NSW, Australia; Sydney Institute for Infectious Diseases, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: katrina.bosward@sydney.edu.au.

PMID: 36424259
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.10.082

Abstract

Australian wildlife rehabilitators (AWR) are at risk of contracting Q fever, a serious zoonotic disease caused by Coxiella burnetii. Despite Australian government recommendations for AWR to receive Q fever vaccination (QFV), and the availability of a safe and effective vaccine in Australia, shortfalls in vaccine uptake have been observed in AWR. This study aimed to determine factors associated with QFV status and describe AWR attitudes and potential barriers towards QFV. Data were obtained from a nationwide, online, cross-sectional survey of AWR undertaken in 2018. Approximately-three quarters (200/265; 75.5 %) of those that had heard of Q fever were also aware of the Q fever vaccine, and of those, 25.5 % (51/200) were vaccinated. Barriers to QFV, among unvaccinated respondents who had also heard of Q fever and the vaccine (149/200; 74.5 %), included concerns regarding the safety, efficacy, and importance of the Q fever vaccine. Complacency toward vaccination, convenience of vaccination, and a lack of Q fever knowledge were also notable barriers. Only 27.7 % (41/148) of respondents reported having had vaccination recommended to them. Multivariable logistic regression identified that vaccinated AWR were more likely to be aged ≤ 50 years (OR 4.51, 95 % CI: 2.14-10.11), have had a university level education (OR 2.78, 95 % CI: 1.39-5.73), have resided in New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory and Queensland than in other Australian jurisdictions (OR 2.9, 95 % CI: 1.10-8.83 and OR 4.82, 95 % CI: 1.64-16.00 respectively) and have attended an animal birth (OR 2.14, 95 % CI: 1.02-4.73). Knowledge gaps regarding Q fever and QFV in AWR demonstrated the need for interventions to raise the awareness of the potential health consequences of C. burnetii exposure and Q fever prevention. Education programs to allow AWR to develop an informed perspective of Q fever and QFV, coupled with improvements in vaccine affordability and the implementation of programs to enhance accessibility, may also increase vaccine uptake.

Keywords: Australian wildlife rehabilitators; Coxiella burnetii; Q fever vaccination; Survey.

MeSH terms

Animals
Animals, Wild
Australia
Bacterial Vaccines
Coxiella burnetii*
Cross-Sectional Studies
Q Fever* / prevention & control
Vaccination

Substances

Bacterial Vaccines