Article

Promoting Influenza Vaccination among Staff of

Nursing Homes According to Behavioral Insights:
Analyzing the Choice Architecture during a Nudge-
Based Intervention
Chiara Lorini 1,*, Francesca Ierardi 2, Claudia Gatteschi 2, Giacomo Galletti 2, Francesca Collini 2,
Laura Peracca 2, Patrizio Zanobini 1, Fabrizio Gemmi 2 and Guglielmo Bonaccorsi 1
1 Department of Health Science, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy;
patrizio.zanobini@unifi.it (P.Z.); guglielmo.bonaccorsi@unifi.it (G.B.)
2 Quality and Equity Unit, Regional Health Agency of Tuscany, 50141 Florence, Italy;

francesca.ierardi@ars.toscana.it (F.I.); claudia.gatteschi@ars.toscana.it (C.G.);

giacomo.galletti@ars.toscana.it (G.G.); francesca.collini@ars.toscana.it (F.C.);
peraccal@gmail.com (L.P.); fabrizio.gemmi@ars.toscana.it (F.G.)
* Correspondence: chiara.lorini@unifi.it; Tel.: +39-0552751065

Received: 15 September 2020; Accepted: 07 October 2020; Published: 12 October 2020

Abstract: (1) Background: Influenza vaccination uptake in nursing home (NH) workers is
uncommon. The aim of this study was to understand the choice architecture of influenza vaccination
acceptance or refusal among them and to promote vaccination acceptance using the nudge
approach. (2) Methods: In autumn 2019, a nudge intervention with a contextual qualitative analysis
of choice architecture of vaccination was performed among the staff of eight Tuscan NHs. In
summer 2020, a cross-sectional study including the staff of 111 NHs (8 in the nudge, 103 in the
comparison group) was conducted to assess the impact of the nudge intervention in promoting
vaccination uptake. (3) Results: Macro-categories of motivations for vaccination uptake that
emerged from the qualitative analysis were risk perception, value dimension, and trust, while those
regarding refusal were risk perception, distrust, value dimension, and reasons related to one’s
health. Considering the cross-sectional study, influenza vaccination uptake in the 2018–2019 season
was similar in the two groups (23.6% vs. 22.2% respectively, in the nudge and comparison group),
but significantly different in the 2019–2020 season: 28% in the nudge vs. 20% in the comparison
group. Also, the intention to get the vaccine in the 2020–2021 season was significantly different in
the two groups: 37.9% in the nudge and 30.8% in the comparison group. (4) Conclusions: Nudge
interventions-simple, fast, low cost-could be effective in promoting vaccination acceptance among
NH workers and the analysis of choice architecture could be useful in improving tailored, new
nudge interventions aimed at modifying irrational biased and cognitive errors.

Keywords: influenza vaccination; nursing home; choice architecture; nudge; staff

1. Introduction
Influenza is a highly contagious viral disease, that affects about 5–15% of the population
worldwide and contributes to a substantial annual burden of deaths globally [1,2]. Illnesses range
from mild to severe and even death, but hospitalization and death occur mainly among high-risk
groups [3]. One of the most vulnerable groups for severe disease and influenza-related complications
are older people; globally, 67% of the deaths occurred among people aged 65 years and older and the
widest range of influenza-associated mortality rates was observed among people aged 75 years and
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600; doi:10.3390/vaccines8040600 www.mdpi.com/journal/vaccines
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 2 of 20

more [2,3]. Nursing home (NH) environments and the vulnerability of their residents provide a
setting that allows the rapid spread of influenza. Outbreaks in such settings, related to the
introduction of influenza virus by staff, visitors, or new residents, can lead to heavy consequences
for older people’s health, and for the healthcare services provided in those facilities (due to
absenteeism of the sick staff and the associated costs) [4].
Influenza vaccination is effective in reducing the burden of influenza illness among older people
in NHs [5–7], although the immunosenescence which accompanies aging may limit their protection
[8]. For this reason, vaccination of the NHs staff that give assistance to older people is required in
order to contribute in reducing the outbreaks and their burden [8]. Nonetheless, influenza vaccination
uptake among staff in NHs is generally low [9–12]. Reasons for such a low influenza vaccination
uptake may include a wide range of factors that can be encompassed within the phenomenon of
vaccine hesitancy, that refers to “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of
vaccination services” [13]. Interventions aimed at promoting vaccination uptake among the staff of
NHs could be devoted to improving access to vaccination, eliminate individual barriers, or introduce
policy interventions [14]. This could be particularly crucial in some geographical contexts such as
Italy, where: (i) influenza vaccination for healthcare workers and, in general, for staff members of
NHs is not mandatory (but strongly recommended), (ii) no compensation for getting the vaccine is
provided (but influenza vaccination is free of charge for such target groups), and (iii) vaccination is
rarely provided to staff members at the NHs where they work (they generally have to contact their
general practitioner to get the vaccine).
Behavioral science theory could help both in understanding the reasons for vaccination
acceptance or refusal, and in promoting vaccination uptake through “nudges”.
Nudge-based interventions lean on behavioral science theories, they work by assuming that the
“choice architecture” on the background of the individual is often based on biased choices [15], that
can be modified in order to facilitate the adoption of an appropriate and socially desirable behavior,
without limiting the options that can be chosen [15].
Many people are already quite familiar with nudges, since they are frequently adopted in shape
marketing strategies: we usually experience “nudges” when we are booking plane tickets online, and
the airlines website requires us to actively choose whether or not to purchase the trip insurance before
we get to the buying option, or when we are suggested to order additional and complementary items
on commercial websites, or when a web TV default options automatically address to play the next
episode in a TV series. Shifting to a nudge approach example in a healthcare setting, physicians can
be nudged to prescribe generically rather than brand-name formulated medication, simply by setting
in the electronic health record the default option for the former and requiring an opt out choice for
the latter [16].
Since nudge interventions appeared to be effective in different healthcare settings [16], in 2019,
the World Health Organization (WHO) published a manual [17] for national immunization program
managers and policy makers that includes nudge interventions among the ones that can promote the
vaccination uptake in healthcare workers. Guided choice across default options and increasing
options to obtain vaccination appear the most effective nudges within an intervention toolkit that
includes also the pre-commitment to obtain vaccination, the information framing with social
comparison feedback, and the information on one’s own and others’ benefits [18,19].
A recent research conducted in Tuscany (Italy) in 28 NHs revealed that only about 16.6% of the
staff was vaccinated against influenza in 2017–2018, and 28.4% declared the intention to get the
vaccine in 2018–2019; moreover, vaccine confidence was the strongest predictor of vaccine acceptance
[12]. Considering these results, a new study was conducted in a sample of Tuscan NHs to understand
the choice architecture of influenza vaccination acceptance or refusal among the staff of nursing
homes and to promote vaccination acceptance using the nudge approach.
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 3 of 20

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

A nudge intervention with a contextual analysis of choice architecture of vaccination acceptance
or refusal was proposed to the Chief Officers of 28 Tuscan NHs that had participated in a previous
study, conducted in 2018, with the aim of investigating influenza vaccination acceptance among staff
of NHs, as described in a recent publication [12]. Eight of them voluntary joined the study. In those
NHs, in November 2019, a letter drawn up using the nudge approach (intervention) and an
anonymous questionnaire to analyze the choice architecture (qualitative study) were administered to
each staff member.
In summer of 2020, a cross-sectional study was conducted in order to assess the impact of the
nudge intervention in promoting vaccination uptake, and to describe the approach towards influenza
vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. In July 2020, the survey was proposed to all the Tuscan
NHs (about 300), and 111 agreed to participate, including the 8 NHs involved in the nudge
intervention. Influenza vaccination uptake in 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 seasons, as well as the
intention to get the vaccine in the 2020–2021 season, were investigated through an anonymous
questionnaire (self-administered). As for the other studies, all the staff members were invited to join
the survey by the Chief Officer.

2.2. The Nudge Intervention

Together with a questionnaire addressed to NH workers assessed to investigate the choice
architecture in vaccination uptake, the accompanying cover letter offered the chance to shape an
intervention to “nudge” the adoption of such behavior.
The cover letter was drawn up according to behavioral insight suggestions included in both the
“non-participation form” contained in the 2019 WHO manual to promote vaccination uptake in
healthcare workers [17], and the initiative funded by Public Health England to reduce antibiotic
prescriptions among general practitioners in the United Kingdom [20].
The paper letter was personally addressed to every single NH worker, and signed by a high-
profile figure (the Chief Director of the Tuscan Health Regional Agency and the Head of the
Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence)—together with the NH Chief Officers—in
order to increase the credibility of its content.
The content aimed to raise awareness not only on the professional responsibility towards fragile
people in case of non-vaccination, but also on the personal working burden the NH workers would
have had to deal with in case of colleagues getting the influenza virus.
The letter ends with the manifestation of trust by the NH Chief Officer in its personnel, and with
the kind request to sign the delivering form and to compile the questionnaire in attachment.
Together with the questionnaire, a leaflet including all the useful information about how to get
vaccinated was provided.
Differently from the WHO non-participation form, NH workers were not asked to sign the
eventual denial of the vaccination uptake. The intervention aimed indeed to raise awareness on the
risks of non-vaccination rather than make workers feel ‘threatened’ by social norms, since such
feeling could have compromised the willingness to compile the questionnaire. For the same reason,
the letter did not make use of social norms (comparisons among proper and improper behaviors) like
in the intervention conducted in the United Kingdom.

2.3. Analysis of Choice Architecture: The Qualitative Study

2.3.1. The Questionnaire

An anonymous paper-and pencil questionnaire was developed to detect the intentions to get the
influenza vaccine in 2019–2020 season and the reasons for their choice (either for positive or negative
intention). It consisted of three questions: the first, with closed answer (yes/not), to describe the
intentions of getting the vaccination, the next two questions were open-ended and required a brief
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 4 of 20

description of the reasons about the intention of getting the vaccination or not, respectively. Finally,
there was the possibility to add comments. The questionnaire was administered to all the staff
members of the 8 NHs involved in the study (n = 527), contextually with the nudge letter and the
leaflet. Compilers put the fulfilled questionnaires in specific boxes, one for any NH. The
administration and the collection of the questionnaires happened from 18th November to 10th
December 2019.

2.3.2. Qualitative Analysis on the Choice Architecture

Qualitative research is aimed to understand a phenomenon within a specific context, thoroughly
exploring a single aspect, case, or issue. It has, therefore, a descriptive and explanatory function. Its
goal is to understand the reasons underlying people’s behavior, deepening individuals’ point of view,
their opinions, attitudes, and reference values: this approach was considered useful to deepen the
personal motivations on NH staffs’ propensity to be vaccinated.
The analysis was carried out according to an inductive method, that is the construction of the
theory formulated starting from the observation of the data collected. The analysis follows an
iterative procedure, as the collection and analysis of the narrative material are in a circular
relationship [21,22]. As the first step of the qualitative analysis, the research team read separately all
the affirmative (yes group) and negative (no group) reasons about the intention to get the influenza
vaccine reported by the respondents.
Within each group (yes group and no group), the research team identified broad and simple
themes and categories, according to the cross-case logic (definition of categories/dimensions and
search for similarities/differences within the groups) and with in-depth descriptions (thick
description) and their labeling. Further analysis procedures were subsequently made to re-read the
texts and redefine the initial categories (circular method), during which the starting categorical
scheme was modified or specified. This process lasted until the research team felt they had achieved
a satisfactory and complete coding scheme. After which, the relationships between themes were
formulated, connecting the categories to each other in a coherent and unitary theory [21–25]. What
emerged was compared with the so-called 5C model, a tool to categorize the psychological
antecedents of vaccination and facilitate vaccination interventions’ design and evaluation.
This model identifies 5 factors: confidence (trust in the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, but
also in the healthcare system and in the professionals who administer them), complacency (when the
perceived risk, related to vaccine-preventable diseases, is low and therefore vaccination is not
considered a necessary preventive action), constraints (the physical availability of vaccines,
accessibility to services, and the ability to understand the problem affecting compliance with
vaccination), calculation (the processing capacity and commitment of people in search for in-depth
information: it is assumed that people with a high level of processing skills are more able to assess
the risks of infections and vaccinations and therefore carry out a cost-benefit analysis), and collective
responsibility (the willingness to protect others by vaccinating themselves, correlated with altruism.
Its opposite is the willingness to rely on the protection derived from the vaccination of others, which
is strictly connected with individualism) [26].

2.4. Cross-Sectional Study

From 15th July to 15th August 2020, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among Tuscan NHs,
using a questionnaire almost completely comparable to that previously used in many different
settings (NHs, hospital, university) [12,27–29]. It was administered on-line (the Chief Officer of each
NHs shared the link to his staff) to collect individual data regarding influenza vaccination (self-
reported) in 2018–2019 (yes/not), in 2019–2020 (yes/not), or intention to be vaccinated in 2020–2021
seasons (very likely, fairly likely, less likely, unlikely), knowledge, awareness, and attitudes
concerning influenza and influenza vaccination (Likert-type), as well as demographic, educational,
and health information. As far as health information is concerned, an assessment of self-perceived
health status (from “1”-bad, to “10”-excellent) was collected. The staff members were also asked
whether they live with children of less than 9 years, with elderly people, or with people with chronic
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 5 of 20

diseases. Finally, the reasons for vaccination uptake or refusal in 2019–2020 were collected using
closed-ended questions, selected according to what emerged in previous research [12,27–29] and to
the results of the analysis of the choice architecture conducted in this study. The questionnaire had a
NH identifier, but no individual identifiers to encourage completion.
As in the previous survey, a Vaccine Confidence Index (VCI) was calculated according to the
literature [30], considering eight Likert-type statements included in the staff questionnaire to which
the participants were asked to declare their agreement or disagreement. The statements were the
following:
i. Influenza is a serious illness (A1)
ii. Influenza vaccine is effective (A2)
iii. Healthcare workers must get vaccinated (A3)
iv. By getting vaccinated I protect people close to me from influenza (A4)
v. It is better to get the flu than the vaccination (B1)
vi. Influenza vaccines have serious side effects (B2)
vii. Vaccine can cause influenza (B3)
viii. Opposed to vaccination (B4)
The level of agreement or disagreement was scored as follows: “totally agree” = 4, “partially
agree” = 3, “partially disagree” = 2, “totally disagree” = 1. For the first four statements (A1–A4), the
higher the Likert score, the better the propensity towards vaccines, while for the second four (B1–B4),
the higher the Likert score, the lower the propensity.
The VCI was calculated as follows:
VCI = [ (A1 + A2 + A3 + A4)/4]/[(B1 + B2 + B3 + B4)/4] (1)
where A1, A2, A3, and A4 were the scores to the first four statements, while B1, B2, B3, and B4 were
those of the second four.

Statistical Analysis
Data on vaccination uptake and intention to vaccinate among the staff of the 8 NHs involved in
the nudge intervention (hereinafter nudge group) were compared with those of the other 103 NHs
that participated in the cross-sectional study (hereinafter comparison group). The same comparison
was performed for the following variables: demographic, qualification, VCI score, living with
children of less than 9 years, with elderly people, or with people with chronic diseases, and self-
perceived health status. To compare vaccination uptake and the other categorical data, Fisher’s exact
test or McNemar’s test were used, respectively for independent and paired samples. For continuous
data, normality was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and then Student’s t test or the
corresponding nonparametric tests were used. All the statistical analyses were performed using IBM
SPSS 26, considering 0.05 as alfa level.

3. Results

3.1. Qualitative Analysis of Choice Architecture

As a whole, 40.2% (212/527) of the NH staff members fulfilled the questionnaire, and 51.8% of
them (110/212) declared to be in favor of getting the influenza vaccination in the 2019–2020 season.
Among those, 83.6% (92/110) expressed one or more reasons for this choice, while among the
unfavorable, only 60.7% (62/102) stated the reasons.

3.1.1. Reasons to Get Vaccinated

Three macro-categories emerged from the qualitative analysis of the answers that motivated the
intention to get the vaccine; within each of them, sub-categories were then identified (Table 1).
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 6 of 20

Table 1. Macro-categories and subcategories of reasons to get vaccinated.

Macro-
Description Sub-Categories
Category
Protection: protection for oneself and
his/her net of contacts
Appropriate knowledge of the disease and Awareness of working in a place at
Risk its risks, awareness of working in a place at higher risk: awareness of being in a
Perception higher risk of contagion, willingness to context that exposes more to the
protect oneself and others likelihood of contracting and
transmitting influenza are mainly
emphasized
Prevention: the will to prevent the
negative effects of the influenza for
Values The set of ideals or norms of the
individual and social benefit
Dimension individuals of a social group, which
Social Responsibility: the collective
influence their action
benefit stands out as a value that
guides one’s intention to get vaccinated
From experience/habits: the sense of
An attitude resulting from a positive
safety and efficacy of the vaccine,
assessment of facts, circumstances,
mainly referred to the protection of
Trust relationships, for which one trusts in the
one’s health
vaccine and more generally in the
From General Practitioner (GP): safety
healthcare system and in the professionals,
and efficacy of the vaccine from GP or
animated by a general feeling of safety
healthcare professionals

A. Risk perception
The first identified macro-category refers to risk perception. It assumes an appropriate
knowledge of the disease and the risks associated with it, the awareness of performing a profession
in a context that exposes more to the likelihood of contracting the virus, and the desire to protect
himself/herself and the others.
Among those workers who declared their intention in favor of getting the vaccine, 83.7% (77/92)
have referred reasons in this macro-category, which therefore represents the core category of those
who declared themselves in favor of vaccination. From the analysis of the motivations that fall within
the perception of risk, two sub-categories were then identified: protection and awareness of working
in a place at higher risk.
(A.1) Protection is an explicit intention aimed at protecting oneself and people nearby (family,
colleagues, nursing homes residents, other people). In particular, most workers explicitly refer to the
desire to protect both the private (themselves or their family) and the public dimension (colleagues
and nursing home residents):
“To avoid flu and to protect my family and NH residents, because they are fragile people”
(respondent NH_5_3)
“In my opinion, vaccination is the (...) safest means of not transmitting it (influenza) to the NH
residents and also to family members” (respondent NH_1-2_15)
A smaller group is concerned only with personal protection and close affections:
“I have already had the vaccine to prevent getting sick” (respondent NH_1-2_11)
“Protect me and my family” (respondent NH_1-2_21)
Few refer to the protection of the public sphere alone:
“To avoid infecting NH residents” (respondent NH_5_6)
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 7 of 20

“I would like to get vaccinated to protect the health of fragile subjects with whom I am in daily
contact” (respondent NH_8_25)
Although the main message in this subcategory is protection (towards himself/herself or others)
through the vaccine, this motivation also contains an attitude of “trust in the vaccine”. This
connection emerges mainly referring to personal protection or close relationships:
“To raise my immunity” (respondent NH_8_64)
“Too many times I find myself with low immune defenses and therefore avoid or reduce the chances
of catching other viruses, also protecting my family” (respondent NH 8_42)
At the same time, the protection for colleagues and NHs residents, together with trust in the
vaccine, calls for awareness of social responsibility, which is the will to protect others by vaccinating
themselves:
“Because I want to protect (...) especially all those who cannot be vaccinated” (respondent NH_1-
2_34)
“Protection towards others and helping people without immune defenses who cannot be vaccinated
to feel safe in the midst of many other people who have the possibility and the luck of being able to
get vaccinated” (respondent NH_8_10)
(A.2) Awareness of working in a place at higher risk. In this second sub-category, the awareness
of being in a context that exposes more to the likelihood of contracting and transmitting influenza are
mainly emphasized. Hence, the intention to adopt protective behaviors:
“Since we do work at risk” (respondent NH_1-2_13)
“I work in a social health facility and there is a greater risk of getting the influenza” (respondent
NH_8_18)
B. Values Dimension
The second identified macro-category concerns the dimension of values, that is the set of ideals
or norms of the individuals of a social group, which influence their action. Within this macro-
category, two sub-categories have been identified.
(B.1) Prevention. The first sub-category refers to a generic motivation for prevention, meant as
the will to prevent the negative effects of the influenza for individual and social benefit. This
behavioral norm implies the appropriateness of a behavior aimed at preventing the disease. In this
sense, although it is also closely linked to the perception of risk, prevention has been included in the
dimension of values:
“I think prevention is important” (respondent NH_8_73)
(B.2) Social responsibility. The second sub-category refers to social responsibility, where the
collective benefit stands out as a value that guides one’s intention to get vaccinated:
“It is a favor that should not be wasted and a social duty” (respondent NH_5_3)
“Civic sense” (respondent NH_8_31)
C. Trust
The third macro-category concerns trust, an attitude resulting from a positive assessment of
facts, circumstances, relationships, for which one trusts-in this case-in the vaccine and more generally
in the healthcare system and in the professionals, animated by a general feeling of safety. Trust can
therefore be characterized into two sub-categories, as follow.
(C.1) Trust from experience/habits. It refers to the sense of safety and efficacy of the vaccine,
mainly referred to the protection of one’s health. The basis of this choice is therefore the assumption
that the vaccine works well because it is based on a positive experience, which corresponds to
expectations:
“In my opinion, vaccination is the most effective means of preventing influenza (...)” (respondent
NH_1-2_15)
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 8 of 20

“I am in favor of vaccines. I don’t want to get sick” (respondent NH_6_3)

This category also includes the motivations of staff members who refer to adopt the choice of
getting vaccinated as a habit, recalling the systematic and repetitive nature of the action. Also, in this
case, a reference to the expectations of the vaccine effectiveness is implicit, so much so that this choice
becomes a personal habit:
“Already done. Always done and I’m fine” (respondent NH_3_15)
“For many years I have been vaccinated to protect the health of assisted guests and my family
members because until a few years ago I had a family member at risk” (respondent NH_6_4)
As we can see from these motivations, trust in the vaccine recalls the macro-category of reference
values (prevention and social responsibility) and awareness of the risk associated with contracting
and transmitting influenza.
(C.2) Trust from the General Practitioner (GP). The trust coming from the GP or from other
healthcare professionals includes the motivations of all staff members declaring to get the vaccine
because they were advised by their referring doctor:
“As an asthmatic, the family doctor strongly advised me to get the vaccine” (respondent NH_8_50)
“On the advice of doctors” (respondent NH_6_7)

3.1.2. Reasons to Not Get Vaccinated

Four macro-categories emerged from qualitative analysis of motivations for not being
vaccinated; within each of them, sub-categories were then identified (Table 2).

Table 2. Macro-categories and subcategories to not get vaccinated.

Macro-
Description Sub-Categories
Category
Uselessness of vaccine:
perception of unnecessariness
about the opportunity of being
vaccinated, with regard to
Poor or distorted knowledge of personal or
one’s health
Risk social risk related to flu assuming that there is
Complacency: attitude
Perception no danger. This option is strengthened by a lack
oriented towards passivity, not
of interest in exploring the topic
questioning one’s choice, lack
of values towards others’
protection and social
responsibility
Distrust in safety: belief that
vaccines can be associated to
serious diseases, collateral and
Attitude to negative evaluation of facts, unknown long-term effects,
circumstances, and relationships generating a and belief that risks are greater
Distrust
feeling of distrust in others as well as in their than benefits
own possibilities and generally producing a Distrust in effectiveness: belief
lack of self-confidence and peace of mind that vaccination is an
avoidable practice because it
does not bring any benefits,
even if it is not harmful
Gaps in ideals or norms based on the awareness Upset: very extreme position
Values
of the healthcare workers’ responsibilities, of refusal to get vaccinated
Dimension
specifically on the norm of social protection Lacking professional
(fragile and non-frail subjects), also achievable responsibility: refers to scarce
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 9 of 20

through personal protection. This can lead to or limited awareness of the

opposition and criticism of the vaccine or responsibility of getting
partial perception of its individual and social vaccinated due to the kind of
usefulness. profession
Reasons Attitude towards vaccination as derived from
related to aspects related to physical inability to be -
one’s health vaccinated

A. Risk perception
As for motivations of those who declare their intention in favor of vaccine, the macro-category
of risk perception is the most represented (55%) among those against the vaccine too. Their negative
attitude is represented by poor or distorted knowledge of personal or social risk of influenza,
assuming that it is not a serious disease. This option is strengthened by a lack of interest in exploring
the topic.
From the analysis of answers related to risk perception, two sub-categories were then identified,
“uselessness of vaccine” and “complacency”.
(A.1) Uselessness of vaccine. It is the most represented sub-category (42%) among those who are
opposed to vaccination. It refers to the perception of unnecessariness about the opportunity of being
vaccinated, with regard to one’s health.
Specifically, in the majority of cases, staff members motivated their perception of uselessness of
vaccine with their “invulnerability” to seasonal flu, claiming that they never get sick:
“It’s hard for me to get the influenza” (respondent NH_7_5)
“I am not a person who gets sick easily, my immune defenses are very strong” (respondent NH_1-
2_18)
It is worth noticing that this motivation contains a prominent attitude to “individualism”, a
value referring to take care of oneself but not for others. It is absent the principle of reciprocity, which
pushes an individual to get vaccinated to protect others, as others protect him/her.
Other respondents report a perception of “general uselessness”, without detailing why they
believe that:
“I believe it’s not necessary” (respondent NH_9_3)
“I think that getting vaccinated is not useful for me” (respondent NH_8_44)
At last, in a few cases, uselessness is motivated by not being in contact with older people in the
workplace.
Compared to previous opinions, which mainly refer to generic or personal absence of risk
perception, this motivation also reveals a lack of knowledge of flu ways of transmission:
“I don’t work closely with residents and I don’t get sick frequently with influenza” (respondent
NH_4_8)
“I am not in direct contact with patients” (respondent NH_8_6)
(A.2) Complacency attitude. The perception of risk includes a second sub-category, the
complacency attitude, that is affected by the habit. Here, the opposition to vaccination lies on
maintaining the habit of never getting vaccinated.
In this case, the attitude seems to be oriented towards passivity, not questioning one’s choice, as
well as towards a lack of values (already described) towards others’ protection and social
responsibility. The habit of not getting vaccinated tends to affect the individual behavior much more
than any negative experiences or distrust with vaccines. It is described as the prevailing power of
inertia, and the maintenance of the status quo: changing one’s mind is in fact one of the most difficult
challenges to fulfill for those who work on the architecture of choices in vaccine.
It is interesting to notice that habit has a double effect, on those who are in favor as well as on
those against vaccination, but with opposite consequences: trust in personal and social benefit vs.
disinterest for others and scarce risk perception for oneself:
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 10 of 20

“I don’t get vaccinated because I never did it” (respondent NH_6_10)

“I haven’t been vaccinated until now, so I prefer not to do it this year either” (respondent NH_6_8)
B. Distrust
The second macro-category refers to “distrust”, defined as an attitude of negative evaluation of
facts, circumstances, and relationships, generating a feeling of distrust in others as well as in their
own possibilities and generally producing a lack in self-confidence and peace of mind.
About the attitude concerning vaccination, in distrust, we can identify two sub-categories:
distrust in safety and distrust in effectiveness.
“Distrust in effectiveness” is based on the belief that vaccination is an avoidable practice because
it does not bring any benefits, even if it is not harmful, recalling the category of “uselessness of
vaccine”.
(B.1) Distrust in safety. The majority of staff members who report reasons related to distrust refer
to “distrust in safety” of vaccines, which seems to derive from negative experiences with vaccine:
“I had physical weakness in previous times” (respondent NH_8_22)
“Because once I got vaccinated and I felt worse than when I didn’t” (respondent NH_5_19)
(B.2) Distrust in effectiveness. The second sub-category, reported by a smaller number of
workers, refers to “distrust in effectiveness” of vaccination practice:
“Once I got vaccinated but I got the flu anyway” (respondent NH_1-2_2)
“I don’t think it’s effective” (respondent NH_1-2_3)
C. Values Dimension
As for motivations of those who declare their intention in favor of vaccine, the macro-category
of “values dimension” has been identified for those against as well. It includes a gap in ideals or
norms based on healthcare workers’ awareness of their responsibilities, specifically on the norm of
social protection (fragile and non-frail subjects), also achievable through personal protection. This
can lead to opposition and criticism of the vaccine or to a partial perception of its individual and
social usefulness.
Two sub-categories have been identified.
(C.1) Upset. Answers are characterized by short and poorly argued positions. In this case,
respondents’ values seem to guide them towards a very extreme position of refusal to get vaccinated.
The transmitted message refers to the denial of flu vaccination importance:
“Anti-vax” (respondent NH_9_1)
“I am against it” (respondent NH_8_60)
(C.2) Lacking professional responsibility. The second sub-category refers to scarce or limited
awareness of the responsibility of getting the vaccine owing to one’s profession. In general, this
attitude calls for a lack of knowledge about the individual and social risk of contracting the flu virus.
This does not necessarily involve totally disregarding vaccination importance, but it is not associated
with a professional duty and it can lead to more extreme positions, i.e., the intention to “exploit” the
others’ immunity for personal protection:
“I take advantage of herd immunity of nursing home’s residents” (respondent NH_1-2_39)
“I personally believe that influenza vaccine is very useful for elderly and immunocompromised but
not necessary for others, even those in contact with these diseases” (respondent NH_8_55)
D. Reasons related to one’s health
The last macro-category identified refers to “reasons related to one’s health”.
Respondents justify their attitude towards vaccination as derived from aspects related to
physical inability to do vaccines. Some workers, for example, declare that they cannot be vaccinated
due to an autoimmune disease for which, indeed, this practice is not indicated:
“I have an active autoimmune disease treated with immunosuppressive therapy” (respondent
NH_8_1)
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 11 of 20

“Autoimmune subject. I do homeopathic vaccine” (respondent NH_7_13)

However, in other cases, respondents’ health fears are not accredited by scientific evidence. This
distrust or distorted knowledge tends to determine a negative attitude towards vaccination:
“I have only one kidney and I don’t want to overload my organism” (respondent NH_6_1)
“This year I have already got other vaccinations and I don’t feel like getting too many vaccines in the
same period (I probably can’t even get them close together)” (respondent NH_8_55)

3.1.3. Interpretative Model

Figures 1 and 2 show and summarize the logical connections, already described in the previous
paragraphs, between the macro-categories and the related sub-categories identified as reasons that
motivated the intention of getting or not getting the influenza vaccine by the NHs staff. In the figures,
it is highlighted that the perception of risk is the core category of both groups of motivations.
In both Figures 1 and 2, knowledge and awareness are in the background, although they have
never emerged as explicit motivations of the respondents’ choices. A correct or distorted knowledge
of the vaccination practice and the relative risks and benefits seems to be the basis of all the other
macro-categories to which the various answers refer. Knowledge and awareness are connected with
the perception of risk, with the correct interpretation of one’s health problems, with trust or mistrust
towards the vaccine, and with the values dimension, on which attitudes and behaviors are based and
from which we let ourselves be guided to make our decisions.

Figure 1. Links between macro-categories and sub-categories of reasons to get vaccinated.

Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 12 of 20

General uselessness
Uselessness motivated by
Uselessness motivated by one's state of health
not being in contact with
elders
Uselessness of vax

Complacency

RISK PERCEPTION
Upset
Safety

NOT VALUES
TRUST DIMENSION
Lacking
professional
Effectiveness REASONS RELATED responsibility
TO ONE’S HEALTH

KNOWLEDGE/AWARENESS

Figure 2. Links between macro-categories and sub-categories of reasons not to get vaccinated.

3.2. Data from the Cross-Sectional Study: The Nudge Group Versus the Comparison Group
As a whole, 2135 staff members fulfilled the questionnaire (compliance equal to 47.8%: 49% in
the nudge group and 47.2% in the comparison group) but 90 were excluded due to excess of missing
responses and 47 because it was not possible to identify the NH where the respondents worked. Then,
the analyses were performed on 1998 questionnaires, with 195 included in the nudge group and 1803
in the comparison group, respectively.
Table 3 reports the results of the descriptive analysis, with the comparison of the two groups.
Regarding demographic, health, and living condition data, the two groups do not significantly differ
for any of the investigated variables, with the exception of “living with people with chronic diseases”:
the percentage of staff members with this condition was significantly (p = 0.006) higher in the
comparison group (17.3%) than in the nudge group (8.7%). Influenza vaccination uptake in the 2018–
2019 season was similar in the two groups (23.6% vs. 22.2% respectively, in the nudge and comparison
group; p = 0.35), but it was significantly different in the 2019–2020 season (p = 0.006): 28% in the nudge
group (+4.4% with respect to 2018–2019) and 20% in the comparison group (−2.1% with respect to
2018–2019). Also, the intention to get the vaccine in the 2020–2021 season was significantly different
in the two groups (p = 0.027): in the nudge group, 37.9% of the staff members stated it was very likely
they will get the vaccine in the 2020–2021 season, while in the comparison group, that percentage was
equal to 30.8%.
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 13 of 20

Table 3. Descriptive analysis of the collected variables by group. VCI: Vaccine Confidence Index, SD: standard
deviation.

Categorical Variables Whole Nudge Group (n = Comparison Group (n = p*

Sampl 195) 1803)
e
(n =
1998)
% % %
Females 86.9 87.2 86.9 0.879
Native speakers-Italian 84.9 87.2 84.6 0.981
Educational Higher than bachelor’s 2.6 2.6 2.6 0.088
level degree
Bachelor’s degree 18.7 17.4 18.9
High school degree 46.5 55.4 45.6
Less than high school 31.2 23.1 33
diploma
Qualification Nurses 12.8 11.8 12.9 0.251
Physiotherapists 4.3 4.6 4.2
Health educators 4 3.6 4
Assistants/aides 58.8 55.4 59.1
Cleaning staff 5.9 10.3 5.4
Other nonclinical staff 6.4 7.7 6.3
Other clinical staff 6.6 5.1 6.8
Living with children of less than 9 years 19.6 17.9 19.8 0.604
Living with elderly people 20.1 15.4 20.6 0.22
Living with people with chronic diseases 16.5 8.7 17.3 0.006
Vaccination uptake 2018–2019 22.3 23.6 22.1 0.35
Vaccination uptake 2019–2020 20.8 28 20 0.006
Intention to vaccinate in 2020–2021 (very 31.5 37.9 30.8 0.027
likely)
Numerical Variables Mean Mean ± SD; Median Mean ± SD; median p°
± SD;
Media
n
Age # 44.4 ± 44.6 ± 10.9; 47 44.3 ± 11.1; 46 0.791
11.1; 46
VCI # 1.61 ± 1.67 ± 0.86; 1.3 1.60 ± 0.83; 1.33 0.358
0.83;
1.3
Health status # 8.5 ± 8.5 ± 1.3; 9 8.5 ± 1.3; 9.0 0.515
1.3; 9.0
* Fisher’s exact test (Nudge vs. Comparison group); ° Mann-Whitney test (Nudge vs. Comparison group); #

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test: p < 0.01.

Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 14 of 20

Reasons for vaccination uptake or not in the 2019–2020 season are described in Table 4.
Concerning the effectiveness of the vaccine (distrust in effectiveness), which consequently caused not
having been vaccinated (“the vaccine does not work”), responses were significantly higher in the
comparison group than the nudge group (16.2% vs. 9.3%). For the other listed reasons, either
regarding vaccination uptake or not, no significant differences were observed between groups.
Nonetheless, among vaccinated staff members, reasons attributable to personal motivations
(prevention and trust form the experience: i.e., “I do not want to get sick”, “I am vaccinated every
year”, “I was sick with influenza in the past”) or to the vaccination uptake of close people (trust form
the experience: “my colleagues or relatives get the vaccine”) tended to be more frequently reported
in the comparison group. On the other hand, in the nudge group, statements such as “I have been
recommended vaccination” and “I felt compelled to be vaccinated” (trust in vaccination) tended to
be more frequently reported as motivations for getting the vaccine. Considering not vaccinated staff
members, the consolidated habits of not getting the vaccination (complacency attitude: “I have never
been vaccinated before”) tended to be more frequently reported in the nudge group as motivation
for not having received the vaccine, as well as the absence of personal experience with the disease
(uselessness of vaccine: “I never get sick with influenza”). In the comparison group, responses
concerning the vaccine such as “fear of side effects”, “I am concerned about getting influenza from
the vaccine” (distrust in safety), “I am not in the target group” (risk perception), and “I did not have
time to be vaccinated” tended to be more frequently reported as motivations for not having received
the influenza vaccination in 2019–2020.
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 15 of 20

Table 4. Motivation for vaccination uptake or non-uptake in the 2019–2020 season, by group.

Motivation for Vaccination Uptake in 2019–2020 Nudge Group (n = 55) Comparison Group (n = 360) p (Fisher’s Exact Test)
I do not want to get sick 76.4 79.7 0.339
Concerning my job, it is important to protect people in contact with me 85.5 84.7 1
I am vaccinated every year 58.2 66.9 0.223
I was sick with influenza in the past 30.9 42.5 0.108
The vaccine administration was convenient 50.9 48.1 0.772
I have been advised to get vaccinated 63.6 54.4 0.224
My colleagues or relatives get the vaccine 20 26.1 0.406
I felt compelled to be vaccinated 78.2 71.7 0.337
Motivation for Vaccination NON-Uptake in 2019–2020 Nudge Group (n = 140) Comparison Group (n = 1443) p (Fisher’s Exact test)
I am not in the target group 34.3 41.3 0.125
Fear of side effects 17.9 24.8 0.078
The vaccine does not work 9.3 16.2 0.028
I am concerned about getting influenza from the vaccine 12.1 15.2 0.385
I never get sick with influenza 47.1 40.3 0.126
The vaccine administration was not convenient 3.6 5.3 0.547
I did not have time to be vaccinated 4.3 8.5 0.103
I forgot to be vaccinated 4.3 6.2 0.458
Fear of needles 5.7 6.3 1
No one informed me about the vaccination campaign 4.3 6.6 0.366
I have never been vaccinated before 45.7 38.1 0.084
I did not think about it 19.3 19.3 1
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 16 of 20

4. Discussion
Vaccination is a preventive and social practice strongly based on the behavior of individuals, in
case of no obligation by law. Accordingly, behavioral science can be useful in understanding the
reasons for vaccination acceptance or refusal, as well as to promote its spread [18,31,32]. For this
reason, we performed the present study with the aim of understanding the choice architecture of
influenza vaccination acceptance or refusal among the staff of NHs and to promote vaccination
acceptance using the nudge approach.

4.1. Choice Architecture

The qualitative analysis of the reasons for the intention of getting or not getting the influenza
vaccination has shown some cognitive biases in making this decision, as well as positive attitudes,
according to the literature [31].
Regarding the intention to get the vaccine, social responsibility, that is the desire to protect others
(colleagues and NH residents) by getting vaccinated, seemed to be a key issue. The principle of
reciprocity can be considered as the base of this reason, as also described by the World Health
Organization [33]: people are more willing to be vaccinated if they know that—by means of
vaccination—they can protect the others and the others can protect themselves. In literature, this
attitude is included among the strategic behaviors of “altruism”. The opposite principle is
“parasitism”, explicitly expressed by one participant as the reason not to be vaccinated: it is the
attitude to protect oneself by leveraging the protection of others (herd immunity) [34]. Parasitism can
be linked to a lack of professional responsibility. Healthcare professionals should share the value of
social protection as a professional responsibility, not just as a duty towards vulnerable individuals.
The study reveals a gap in this regard as well as a limited perception of the risk to one’s health. These
workers, who motivate the answer with their “invulnerability” to seasonal influenza, also show a
gap in professional ethics: the sense of common good, which includes the respect for rules, laws, and
attitudes towards people and colleagues, is fundamental for the sense of taking care of residents of
health and social facilities. Jonas underlines the importance of the ethics of responsibility and the
ethics of care, linking both of them to the fear of the patient’s vulnerability. The ethics of care can be
considered a way to counteract current indifference [35].
Lacking professional responsibility, in addition to a lack of knowledge upon the risks given by
influenza, also emerges among those who did not want to get vaccinated because they were not in
direct contact with the NH residents. In this regard, WHO reports that NH staff, independently from
the job role, should be vaccinated because they could represent a source of infection for their
colleagues [17].
Additionally, another common determinant of non-vaccination is the belief that vaccines are
unsafe [36], and/or associated with serious diseases and unknown long-term side effects. This distrust
is also recalled by those who fear the side effects of the vaccine on their current health problems, even
when evidence does not support this relationship.
The factors that determine the staff’s intention or not to get vaccinated are in line with the 5C
model by Betsch et al. [26]. The model has been developed as a lean tool to categorize the
determinants of vaccination, monitor the hesitancy to get vaccinated, and facilitate the planning and
evaluation of vaccination implementation interventions. It comprises five main categories:
confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility.
From our analysis, three factors clearly emerge referring to the 5C Model, both in favor of and
against vaccination: confidence, complacency, and collective responsibility (the willingness to protect
others by vaccinating themselves, correlated with altruism. Its opposite is the willingness to rely on
the protection derived from the vaccination of others, which is strictly connected with individualism).
With regard to the calculation, more in-depth analyses would be required. On the other hand, the
constraints category does not emerge as an obstacle or facilitator. Since the constraint issue emerged
as one of the reasons for not-getting vaccinated in the cross-sectional study (“I did not have time”),
we can suppose that physical barriers, such as difficulties in accessibility to the services, could
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 17 of 20

contribute to explaining the differences between the intention to get the vaccine and the vaccination
uptake.

4.2. The Nudge Intervention in Promoting Influenza Vaccination Uptake

According to the results, a nudge intervention like that applied in this study-i.e., a personal-
addressed paper letter, signed by high-profile figures and aimed to raise awareness about the
professional responsibility towards fragile people and colleagues, delivered with an information
leaflet—could be useful in promoting influenza vaccination uptake. In fact, after the nudge
intervention, both influenza vaccination uptake in the 2019–2020 season and intention of getting the
vaccine in the 2020–2021 season were significantly higher in the nudge group than in the comparison
group, while in the previous season (2018–2019), vaccination uptake was similar in the two groups.
Moreover, respondents of the two groups were similar with respect to the Vaccine Confidence Index,
that has been indicated as the major predictor of influenza vaccination acceptance among Tuscan
NHs staff in a previous study [12]. The effect of the nudge intervention is supported by behavioral
science theories and seems to be confirmed also by analyzing the reported motivations for vaccine
uptake or non-uptake, which tend to be different in the nudge group with respect to the comparison
group (although without statistically significant differences).
Nudging can be considered as a theoretically grounded, potentially effective way to address the
behavior gap in promoting healthy habits, such has healthy eating, as well as in designing and
implementing public health policies [32,37,38]. It is becoming more and more popular since it offers
a cheap and easy-to-perform tool by offering a guidance, without enforcement, on individual
behavioral change that is good for and, on reflection, preferred by, individuals themselves [39]. To
introduce a nudge approach in this study, a “nudging” cover letter, according to the form suggested
by the WHO manual [19], was drawn up and administered together with the questionnaire to
investigate NH workers’ choice architecture about vaccination uptake. In line with the literature, our
nudge intervention had no other cost than the few hours the team spent to simply discuss and
implement the behaviorally informed document.
Just a few primary studies have been already conducted in assessing the effectiveness of nudging
in promoting vaccination uptake. Some of them have described the results of nudge interventions
aimed at increasing influenza vaccination uptake—although different from those that have been used
in this study—with inconsistent results: some authors have described a significant increase in
vaccination acceptance, while others found no effects [40–42].
Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first research conducted among NH staff,
including both healthcare and non-healthcare workers, with no possible international comparisons
for the same target. Future studies should be realized in order to confirm the effectiveness of nudging
in promoting influenza vaccination uptake among NH staff, and to assess whether different nudge
interventions lead to different results.

4.3. Limitations of the Study

This study has some limitations. First of all, the participation in the qualitative study and in the
nudge intervention was voluntary, so that the sample has to be considered as one of convenience. In
particular, a selection bias, either at the NH or at the individual level, could be present. The Chief
Officers who agreed to participate should have been those with more interest in promoting influenza
vaccination uptake in the NHs they direct. Moreover, also the staff members who responded to the
questionnaire for the analysis of the choice architecture should have been those more interested in
sharing their opinion of influenza vaccination. Furthermore, in some NHs, the percentage of the staff
that fulfilled the questionnaire was quite low, and since it was not possible to investigate the reasons
for low compliance in some facilities, this aspect could have introduced another selection bias. Similar
limits can be listed for the cross-sectional survey as well, although a large number of NHs
participated. Additionally, many Chief Officers agreed to participate in the cross-sectional study, so
that the two groups-the nudge group and the comparison group-are numerically unbalanced. This
aspect could have affected the comparison.
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 18 of 20

Overall, these aspects lead to limitations in the generalizability of the results.

Regarding collected variables, the recall bias could have influenced data on vaccination uptake
in the 2018–2019 season, while the social desirability bias could have influenced some of the
expressions of motivations for vaccination uptake or not. Regarding the latter, anonymity should
have limited the bias.
Finally, it is to note that the cross-sectional study was conducted during the COVID-19
pandemic, in particular at the end of the first wave in Italy. The effect of the pandemic is supposed
to be the same on the participants of both the nudge and the comparison group, so it can be supposed
not to be a confounding factor when comparing data regarding the two groups. On the other hand,
it could have affected the intention to get vaccinated in the 2020–2021 season, that actually resulted
quite high in both groups.

5. Conclusions
Although the results of this study need to be confirmed in future, larger studies, we can conclude
that nudge interventions-that are simple, fast, and low cost-could be effective in promoting
vaccination acceptance among NH staff and the analysis of choice architecture could be useful in
improving tailored, new nudge interventions aimed at changing irrational biased and cognitive
errors.
In fact, in the case of vaccinations, as well as for many other decisions in everyday life, people
are conditioned to too much conflicting and opposing information, independently from the real
“truth” or scientific evidence. This is the reason why, also in the case of being vaccinated, people who
should be favorable to being vaccinated-as is the case of healthcare professionals-are often hesitant
and need a sort of gentle push, as nudge has been defined.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.L., G.B., G.G., F.C., and F.I.; methodology, C.G., F.I., F.C., C.L., and
G.G.; formal analysis, C.L., C.G., F.I., and L.P.; investigation, F.C.; resources, F.G. and G.B.; data curation, C.L.
and F.C.; writing—original draft preparation, C.L., G.B., C.G., F.I., G.G., and P.Z.; writing—review and editing,
C.L., G.B., C.G., F.I., and G.G.; supervision, G.B.; project administration, F.C. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: The authors want to thank Lisa Rigon and Alessandra Ninci for the support in the
qualitative analysis, and the Chief Directors and the staff of the nursing homes for participating in the study.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. World Health Organization. Influenza (Seasonal). Available online: https://www.who.int/en/news-
room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal) (accessed on 16 July 2020).
2. Iuliano, A.D.; Roguski, K.M.; Chang, H.H.; Muscatello, D.J.; Palekar, R.; Tempia, S.; Cohen, C.; Gran, J.M.;
Schanzer, D.; Cowling, B.J; et al. Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: A
modelling study. Lancet 2018, 391, 1285–1300.
3. Paget, J.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Charu, V.; Taylor, R.J.; Iuliano, A.D.; Bresee, J.; Simonsen, L.; Viboud, C.
Global Seasonal Influenza-associated Mortality Collaborator Network and GLaMOR Collaborating Teams.
Global mortality associated with seasonal influenza epidemics: New burden estimates and predictors from
the GLaMOR Project. J. Global Health 2019, 9, 20421, doi:10.7189/jogh.09.020421.
4. Lansbury, L.E.; Brown, C.S.; Nguyen-Van-Tam, J.S. Influenza in long-term care facilities. Influenza Other
Respir. Viruses 2017, 11, 356–366.
5. Vetrano, D.L.; Collamati, A.; Magnavita, N.; Sowa, A.; Topinkova, E.; Finne-Soveri, H.; van der Roest, H.G.;
Tobiasz-Adamczyk, B.; Giovannini, S.; Ricciardi, W.; et al. Health determinants and survival in nursing
home residents in Europe: Results from the SHELTER study. Maturitas 2018, 107, 19–25,
doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.09.014.
6. Poscia, A.; Collamati, A.; Carfì, A.; Topinkova, E.; Richter, T.; Denkinger, M.; Pastorino, R.; Landi, F.;
Ricciardi, W.; Bernabei, R.; et al. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination in older adults living in nursing
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 19 of 20

home: A survival analysis on the shelter study. Eur. J. Public Health 2017, 27, 1016–1020,
doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckx150.
7. Pop-Vicas, A.; Rahman, M.; Gozalo, P.L.; Gravenstein, S.; Mor, V. Estimating the Effect of Influenza
Vaccination on Nursing Home Residents’ Morbidity and Mortality. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2015, 63, 1798–1804,
doi:10.1111/jgs.13617.
8. Frentzel, E.; Jump, R.L.P.; Archbald-Pannone, L.; Nace, D.A.; Schweon, S.J.; Gaur, S.; Naqvi, F.; Pandya, N.;
Mercer, W. Infection Advisory Subcommittee of AMDA, The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care
Medicine. Recommendations for Mandatory Influenza Vaccinations for Health Care Personnel from
AMDA’s Infection Advisory Subcommittee. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2020, 21, 25–28.e2,
doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2019.11.008.
9. Daugherty, J.D.; Blake, S.C.; Grosholz, J.M.; Omer, S.B.; Polivka-West, L.; Howard, D.H. Influenza
vaccination rates and beliefs about vaccination among nursing home employees. Am. J. Infect. Control 2015,
43, 100–106, doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2014.08.021.
10. Borgey, F.; Henry, L.; Lebeltel, J.; Lescure, P.; Le Coutour, X.; Vabret, A.; Verdon, R.; Thibon, P. Effectiveness
of an intervention campaign on influenza vaccination of professionals in nursing homes: A cluster-
randomized controlled trial. Vaccine 2019, 37, 1260–1265, doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.01.066.
11. Looijmans-van den Akker, I.; van Delden, J.J.; Verheij, T.J.; van der Sande, M.A.; van Essen, G.A.; Riphagen-
Dalhuisen, J.; Hulscher, M.E.; Hak, E. Effects of a multi-faceted program to increase influenza vaccine
uptake among health care workers in nursing homes: A cluster randomised controlled trial. Vaccine 2010,
28, 5086–5092, doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.05.003.
12. Lorini, C.; Collini, F.; Gasparini, F.; Paolini, D.; Grazzini, M.; Ierardi, F.; Galletti, G.; Zanobini, P.; Gemmi,
F.; Bonaccorsi, G. Health Literacy, Vaccine Confidence and Influenza Vaccination Uptake among Nursing
Home Staff: A Cross-Sectional Study Conducted in Tuscany. Vaccines 2020, 30, E154,
doi:10.3390/vaccines8020154.
13. Mc Donald, N. The SAGEWorking Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and
determinants. Vaccine 2015, 33, 4161–4164.
14. Bechini, A.; Lorini, C.; Zanobini, P.; Tacconi, F.M.; Boccalini, S.; Grazzini, M.; Bonanni, P.; Bonaccorsi, G.
Utility of Healthcare System-Based Interventions in Improving the Uptake of Influenza Vaccination in
Healthcare Workers at Long-Term Care Facilities: A Systematic Review. Vaccines 2020, 8, E165,
doi:10.3390/vaccines8020165.
15. Thaler, R.; Sunstein, C. La Spinta Gentile, 7th ed.; Giangiacomo Feltrinelli Editore: Milano, Italy, 2009; pp.
10–12, 91–109.
16. Patel, M.S.; Volpp, K.G.; Asch, D.A. Nudge Units to Improve the Delivery of Health Care. N. Engl. J. Med.
2018, 378, 214–216.
17. World Health Organization. How to Implement Seasonal Influenza Vaccination of Health Workers: An
Introduction Manual for National Immunization Programme Managers and Policy Makers: Pilot Version 2019;
World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
18. Patel, M.S. Nudges for influenza vaccination. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2018, 2, 720–721.
19. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public Health: Ethical Issues; Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London, UK, 2007.
20. Hallsworth, M.; Chadborn, T.; Sallis, A.; Sanders, M.; Berry, D.; Greaves, F.; Clements, L.; Davies, S.C.
Provision of social norm feedback to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: A pragmatic
national randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016, 387, 1743–1752.
21. Glaser, B.; Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Sociology Press:
Mill Valley, CA, USA, 1967.
22. Corbetta, P. La Ricerca Sociale: Metodologia e Tecniche—III. Le Tecniche Qualitative; Il Mulino: Bologna, Italy, 2005.
23. Sala, E. L’intervista. In Il Mondo Della Ricerca Qualitativa; de Lillo, A., Ed.; UTET: Torino, Italy, 2010.
24. Stein, C.H.; Mankowski, E.S. Asking, witnessing, interpreting, knowing: Conducting qualitative research
in community psychology. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 2004, 33, 21–35.
25. Connelly, J.; Clandinin, F.M. Narrative Inquiry. Experience and Story in Qualitative Research; Jossey Bass
Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000.
26. Betsch, C.; Schmid, P.; Heinemeier, D.; Kom, L.; Holtmann, C.; Bohm, R. Beyond confidence: Development
of a measure assessing the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208601,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208601.
Vaccines 2020, 8, 600 20 of 20

27. Bonaccorsi, G.; Santomauro, F.; Porchia, B.R.; Niccolai, G.; Pellegrino, E.; Bonanni, P.; Lorini, C. Beliefs and
Opinions of Health Care Workers and Students Regarding Influenza and Influenza Vaccination in Tuscany,
Central Italy. Vaccines 2015, 3, 137–147, doi:10.3390/vaccines3010137.
28. Bonaccorsi, G.; Lorini, C.; Santomauro, F.; Guarducci, S.; Pellegrino, E.; Puggelli, F.; Balli, M.; Bonanni, P.
Predictive factors associated with the acceptance of pandemic and seasonal influenza vaccination in health
care workers and students in Tuscany, Central Italy. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2013, 9, 2603–2612,
doi:10.4161/hv.26036.
29. Bonaccorsi, G.; Lorini, C.; Porchia, B.R.; Niccolai, G.; Martino, G.; Giannarelli, L.; Santomauro, F. Influenza
vaccination: Coverage and risk perception among students of the health professions at Florence University,
Italy. Ann. Ig. 2013, 25, 181–189, doi:10.7416/ai.2013.1920.
30. Paoli, S.; Lorini, C.; Puggelli, F.; Sala, A.; Grazzini, M.; Paolini, D.; Bonanni, P.; Bonaccorsi, G. Assessing
Vaccine Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study at an Italian Paediatric Hospital
and the Development of a Healthcare Worker’s Vaccination Compliance Index. Vaccines 2019, 29, 201,
doi:10.3390/vaccines7040201.
31. Dubov, A.; Phung, C. Nudges or mandates? The ethics of mandatory flu vaccination. Vaccines 2015, 33,
2530–2535.
32. Meng, L.; Gretchen, B.C. Nudge to Health: Harnessing Decision Research to Promote Health Behavior. Soc.
Personal. Psychol. Compass 2013, 7, 187–198, doi:10.1111/spc3.12019.
33. World Health Organization. Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP). Ind Introductory Overview.
Available online:
https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/Global_TIP_overview_July2018.pdf?ua=1
(accessed on 16 July 2020).
34. Brewer, N.; Chapman, G.; Rothman, A.; Leask, J.; Kempe, A. Increasing vaccination: Putting psychological
science into action. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2017, 18, 149–207, doi:10.1177/1529100618760521.
35. Jonas, H. Il Principio Responsabilità. Un’etica per la Civiltà Tecnologica; Einaudi: Torino, Italy, 1990.
36. Censis. La Cultura Della Vaccinazione in Italia: Un’indagine sui Genitori; Censis: Rome, Italy, 2014.
37. Broers, V.J.; De Breucker, C.; Van den Broucke, S.; Luminet, O. A systematic review and meta-analysis of
the effectiveness of nudging to increase fruit and vegetable choice. Eur J. Public Health 2017, 27, 912–920,
doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckx085.
38. Whitehead, M.; Jones, R.; Howell, R.; Lilley, R.; Pykett, J. Nudging All Over the World. Assessing the Global
Impact of Behavioural Sciences on Public Policy; ESRC Report; Economic and Social Research Council:
Swindon/Edinburgh, UK, 2014.
39. Oliver, A. Is nudge an effective public health strategy to tackle obesity? Yes. BMJ 2011, 342,
doi:10.1136/bmj.d2168.
40. Maltz, A.; Sarid, A. Attractive Flu Shot: A Behavioral Approach to Increasing Influenza Vaccination Uptake
Rates. Med. Decis. Making 2020, 40, 774–784, doi:10.1177/0272989X20944190.
41. Schmidtke, K.A.; Nightingale, P.G.; Reeves, K.; Gallier, S.; Vlaev, I.; Watson, S.I.; Lilford, R.J. Randomised
controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to prompt front-line staff to take up the seasonal influenza
vaccine. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2020, 29,189–197, doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009775.
42. Lehmann, B.A.; Chapman, G.B.; Franssen, F.M.; Kok, G.; Ruiter, R.A. Changing the default to promote
influenza vaccination among health care workers. Vaccine 2016, 34, 1389–1392,
doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.01.046.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).