Person:

Weiss, Mitchell

Vaccination is a cornerstone of influenza prevention, but limited vaccine uptake was a problem worldwide during the 2009–2010 pandemic. Community acceptance of a vaccine is a critical determinant of its effectiveness, but studies have been confined to high-income countries. We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-method study in urban and rural Pune, India in 2012–2013. Semi-structured explanatory model interviews were administered to community residents (n=436) to study awareness, experience and preference between available vaccines for pandemic influenza. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews complemented the survey. Awareness of pandemic influenza vaccines was low (25%). Some respondents did not consider vaccines relevant for adults, but nearly all (94.7%), when asked, believed that a vaccine would prevent swine flu. Reported vaccine uptake however was 8.3%. Main themes identified as reasons for uptake were having heard of a death from swine flu, health care provider recommendation or affiliation with the health system, influence of peers and information from media. Reasons for non-use were low perceived personal risk, problems with access and cost, inadequate information and a perceived lack of a government mandate endorsing influenza vaccines. A majority indicated a preference for injectable over nasal vaccines, especially in remote rural areas. Hesitancy from a lack of confidence in pandemic influenza vaccines appears to have been less of an issue than access, complacency and other sociocultural considerations. Recent influenza outbreaks in 2015 highlight a need to reconsider policy for routine influenza vaccination while paying attention to sociocultural factors and community preferences for effective vaccine action.

Background: Prior experience and the persisting threat of influenza pandemic indicate the need for global and local preparedness and public health response capacity. The pandemic of 2009 highlighted the importance of such planning and the value of prior efforts at all levels. Our review of the public health response to this pandemic in Pune, India, considers the challenges of integrating global and national strategies in local programmes and lessons learned for influenza pandemic preparedness.

Methods: Global, national and local pandemic preparedness and response plans have been reviewed. In-depth interviews were undertaken with district health policy-makers and administrators who coordinated the pandemic response in Pune.

Results: In the absence of a comprehensive district-level pandemic preparedness plan, the response had to be improvised. Media reporting of the influenza pandemic and inaccurate information that was reported at times contributed to anxiety in the general public and to widespread fear and panic. Additional challenges included inadequate public health services and reluctance of private healthcare providers to treat people with flu-like symptoms. Policy-makers developed a response strategy that they referred to as the Pune plan, which relied on powers sanctioned by the Epidemic Act of 1897 and resources made available by the union health ministry, state health department and a government diagnostic laboratory in Pune.

Conclusion: The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) global strategy for pandemic control focuses on national planning, but state-level and local experience in a large nation like India shows how national planning may be adapted and implemented. The priority of local experience and requirements does not negate the need for higher level planning. It does, however, indicate the importance of local adaptability as an essential feature of the planning process. Experience and the implicit Pune plan that emerged are relevant for pandemic preparedness and other public health emergencies.