Vaccination
Seasonal vs pandemic flu vaccine coverage
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
In France, seasonal influenza coverage stayed near 21% while pandemic H1N1 coverage was only about 11%.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — Retrospective telephone survey of French mainland population on seasonal and pandemic vaccine uptake
- N
- N=10091 · 10,130 randomly selected; 10,091 included; 8,905/15,983 households responded (55.7%)
- Population
- Random sample of mainland France population
- Outcome
- Seasonal and 2009 pandemic influenza vaccination coverage
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Seasonal coverage was about 20.6–20.8% overall and about 55% among at-risk people. Pandemic coverage was 11.1% overall; older adults had high seasonal but low pandemic uptake.
Methodology
A retrospective cross-sectional telephone survey estimated influenza vaccination coverage for seasonal seasons and the 2009 pandemic vaccine, and examined uptake determinants.
Limitations
Self-reported vaccination and incomplete household response can bias estimates. Cross-sectional correlates are not causal.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Multiple studies in this library examine vaccination with empirical patient or population outcomes rather than opinion alone.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Seasonal coverage was about 20.6–20.8% overall and about 55% among at-risk people. Pandemic coverage was 11.1% overall; older adults had high seasonal but low pandemic uptake.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Effect sizes and settings differ across vaccination studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
A retrospective telephone survey estimated seasonal influenza coverage at about 20.6–20.8% overall and about 55% among at-risk people, versus 11.1% overall for the 2009 pandemic vaccine. Older adults had high seasonal but low pandemic uptake. Self-report and incomplete household response can bias those percentages; cross-sectional correlates of uptake are not causal.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Hypothetical acceptance, reported coverage, administrative utilisation and CRT endline surveys are four different measurement jobs. Libya's 79.6% at ≥90% efficacy is a stated intention under a scenario. Seasonal flu coverage of ~21% and pandemic coverage of 11.1% are recalled past behaviour. Telemedicine's jump from 1.4% to 28.1% is billing data. SASA!'s ~50% IPV contrast is a randomised community comparison that used surveys. Averaging those percentages as 'survey findings on uptake' erases the disagreements.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Effect sizes and settings differ across vaccination studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
- Supports · What predicts full childhood immunization in Senegal
- Supports · COVID vaccine acceptance in Libya
Hypothetical acceptance, reported coverage, administrative utilisation and CRT endline surveys are four different measurement jobs. Libya's 79.6% at ≥90% efficacy is a stated intention under a scenario. Seasonal flu coverage of ~21% and pandemic coverage of 11.1% are recalled past behaviour. Telemedicine's jump from 1.4% to 28.1% is billing data. SASA!'s ~50% IPV contrast is a randomised community comparison that used surveys. Averaging those percentages as 'survey findings on uptake' erases the disagreements.
- Supports · COVID vaccine acceptance in Libya
- Supports · How did rural telemedicine change in COVID?
- Supports · SASA! cut partner violence in Kampala
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.