Influenza illness causes several disruptions to the workforce. The absenteeism that often ensues has economic implications for employers. This study aimed to estimate the cost-benefit of influenza vaccination in a healthcare setting from the employer’s perspective.

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted in a private hospital in 2018–2019 comparing voluntary vaccinated with non-vaccinated employees with influenza vaccine. The analyses were made based on self-reporting on absenteeism and presenteeism from Influenza-like illnesses (ILIs). The costs incurred, both direct and indirect costs, were included in the study. A cost-benefit analysis was performed by measuring the cost of the vaccination program. The costs of absenteeism and reduced productivity were calculated using 3 hypothesised levels of effectiveness in the following percentage of productivity of 30%, 50%, and 70%. The costs were also calculated based on four scenarios: with and without operating income and with and without replacement. The benefits of the influenza vaccination from the employer’s perspective were analysed. The benefit to cost ratio was determined.

A total of four hundred and twenty-one respondents participated. The influenza vaccination rate was 63.0%. The rate of ILI of 38.1% was significantly lower among vaccinated. The ILI-related absenteeism reported was also significantly lower amongst vaccinated employees at 30% compared to 70% non-vaccinated. Employers could save up to USD 18.95 per vaccinated employee when only labour cost was included or 54.0% of cost savings. The cost-saving rose to USD 155.56 when the operating income per employee was also included. The benefit to cost ratio confirmed that the net cost-benefit gained from the vaccination was more than the net cost of vaccination.

Influenza vaccination for working adults was cost-saving and cost-beneficial when translated into financial investments for the employer. A workplace vaccination demonstrates a significant cost-benefit strategy to be applied in any institutional setting.

For health care workers, immune management plays an important role in the protection against infectious diseases. This study investigated the seroprevalence of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella-zoster in newly employed female nurses.

We conducted a survey on the seroprevalence of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella-zoster in newly employed female nurses at a university hospital from 2011 to 2019, before the nurses were given their department placements and duty start. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent and chemiluminescence immunoassays were used to detect immunoglobulin G antibodies. We analyzed whether there was a significant difference in seroprevalence depending on the age, birth year, birth season, and region of residence (metropolitan residency: yes or no).

The arithmetic mean ages of the participants were 28.6 ± 4.8, 23.5 ± 3.2, 23.6 ± 3.0, and 26.1 ± 4.5 years for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella-zoster, respectively. The seropositivity rates were 93.9% (551/587), 60.2% (50/83), 83.3% (3,093/3,711), and 89.5% (978/1,093) for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella-zoster, respectively. Significant differences in the seroprevalence when assessed according to the age and birth year were noted with measles, while significant differences in the seroprevalence were only noted with rubella and varicella-zoster when assessed according to birth year and age, respectively.

In this study, we identified the levels of antibody prevalence in new female nurses. Considering the seropositivity levels, cost-effectiveness, and convenience for the participants, we recommend that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccination be provided without serologic testing for all new female nurses and the varicella-zoster vaccination only be performed for persons who are negative after serologic testing. And it would be useful if the vaccinations were combined with compulsory worker health examinations, such as the pre-placement health examinations.

Hepatitis B is a viral infection of the liver and causes both acute and chronic disease. It is transmitted through contact with an infected person’s bodily fluids. It is an occupational hazard for healthcare workers and can be prevented by the administration of a vaccine. It is recommended that healthcare workers be vaccinated against vaccine preventable diseases including hepatitis B. The study objective was to determine the prevalence and determinants of hepatitis B vaccination among healthcare workers in selected health facilities in Lusaka.

The study took place in seven health facilities across Lusaka district in Zambia. A total sample size of 331 healthcare workers was selected of which; 90 were nurses, 88 were doctors, 86 were laboratory personnel and 67 were general workers. A self-administered structured questionnaire was given to a total of 331 healthcare workers. Investigator led stepwise approach was used to select the best predictor variables in a multiple logistic regression model and all analyses were performed using STATA software, version 12.1 SE (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

Only 64(19.3%) of the healthcare workers were vaccinated against hepatitis B, with 35 (54.7%) of these being fully vaccinated and 29 (45.3%) partially vaccinated. Analysis showed that; age of the healthcare worker, sharp injuries per year and training in infection control were the variables that were statistically significant in predicting a healthcare worker’s vaccination status.

It is reassuring to learn that healthcare workers have knowledge regarding hepatitis B and the vaccine and are willing to be vaccinated against it. Health institutions should bear the cost for vaccinating staff and efforts should be made for appropriate health education regarding hepatitis B infection and its prevention. Establishment of policies on compulsory hepatitis B vaccination for healthcare workers in Zambia is recommended.