Our study included seven university centers in Romania: University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila Bucharest, Faculty of Medicine Brasov, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, and Faculty of Medicine Sibiu. The survey received responses from 62 individuals representing nine discipline groups, including Public Health and Health Promotion, Primary Care of the State of Health, Infectious Diseases, Family Medicine and Community Medical Care, Other Specialties, Epidemiology, Pediatrics, Basic Medical Sciences (Pharmacology, Immunology, Microbiology), and Ethics and Communication.
Three centers, namely, the University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila" Bucharest, University of Medicine Craiova, and Faculty of Medicine Brasov, exceeded the 85% response threshold and were included in the detailed analysis (Table 1).
Table 1
Head departments repones on each Rumanian medicine faculty
Bucuresti
|
Craiova
|
Brasov
|
Timisoara
|
Cluj
|
Iasi
|
Sibiu
|
|
Public Health and Health Promotion
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
N
|
Y
|
N
|
Infectious Diseases
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
Family medicine
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Other medical and surgical specialties
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
Y
|
N
|
N
|
Epidemiology
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
Pediatrics
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
Y
|
N
|
N
|
Basic medical sciences
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
Y
|
N
|
Ethics and Communication
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
Nursing and Community Medicine
|
N
|
Y
|
N
|
N
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
Total
|
88%
|
100%
|
88%
|
33%
|
55%
|
55%
|
11%
|
In these centers, all seminars and lectures on vaccinology were mandatory.
Regarding the allocation of lecture time to vaccinology, significant variations were observed across disciplines in these three centers. Pediatrics dedicated a substantial mean of 35.7%, while family medicine allocated 10% of their lecture time. Epidemiology contributed 16% of their lecture time, and basic medical sciences accounted for 13.2%. Ethics and communication comprised a relatively small portion, with a median of 1.7%, and other medical and surgical specialties allocated no time for lectures on vaccinology (Table 2).
Table 2
Percentage of lecture time on vaccinology out of total number of hours presented as Median IQR; # Omogen distribution(Mean SD)
Discipline
|
Public Health and Health Promotion
|
5.3% (IQR 14)
|
Infectious Diseases#
|
5.5% (SD1)
|
Family medicine
|
10% (IQR 6.3)
|
Other medical and surgical specialties
|
0% (IQR 0.96)
|
Epidemiology
|
16.6%(IQR 26)
|
Pediatrics#
|
35.7% (SD 55)
|
Basic medical sciences #
|
3.2% (SD 12.9)
|
Ethics and Communication#
|
1.7% (SD 2.5)
|
Nursing and Community Medicine
|
0%
|
In addition to lecture time allocation, we also assessed the percentage of seminar and practical skills dedicated to vaccinology relative to the overall time. Here, epidemiology had a median of 16.6%, Basic Medical Sciences had a mean of 15.6%, Public Health and Health Promotion had a median of 10.7%, and Family Medicine had a median of 8.8% (Table 3).
Table 3
Percentage of seminary and practical skills time on vaccinology out of total number of hours presented as Median IQR; # Omogen distribution(Mean SD)
Discipline
|
Public Health and Health Promotion
|
10.7% (IQR 16.4)
|
Infectious Diseases#
|
2.5% (SD 3.1)
|
Family medicine
|
8.8% (IQR 10.9)
|
Other medical and surgical specialties
|
0
|
Epidemiology
|
16.6% (IQR 32.1)
|
Pediatrics#
|
4.2% (SD 2.5)
|
Basic medical sciences#
|
15.6% (SD 14.5)
|
Ethics and Communication#
|
0
|
Nursing and Community Medicine
|
0
|
Fifty-three students from the 3 included centers responded to our survey.
We found a high convergence of the vaccine curricula in the three centers included in the analysis. Students have achieved a high level of coverage and acquisition of knowledge across various aspects of vaccinology, and their understanding often exceeds the expected and desired levels.
The findings for each section are detailed in Annex 1:
-
Rationale, context, and history of immunization: 100% coverage and acquisition by the students, meeting the desired and expected levels.
-
Key aspects of immunology: 100% coverage and acquisition by the students, aligning with the desired and expected levels.
-
Key aspects of vaccines: Students have acquired knowledge regarding the stages of vaccine development and quality management, which were not covered by the teachers in 2 of the 3 faculties.
-
Vaccine-preventable diseases: 100% coverage and acquisition by the students, meeting the desired and expected levels.
-
Immunization policy and schedules: Students can name factors influencing immunization coverage that were not covered by one of the faculty, but they acquired this knowledge.
-
Future prospects: Students have discussed new methods of vaccine administration, which were not covered by one of the faculties but were acquired by them.
VII Communication: Students have acquired a comprehensive understanding of various issues affecting and influencing vaccination decisions and communication strategies.
They have also gained insights into addressing vaccine hesitancy, avoiding categorization, and applying principles of effective communication in vaccination.
-
Professional commitment: Students are committed to offering the best professional advice on vaccination, although this knowledge was covered but not fully acquired in one of the faculties.
-
Practical skills: Students have acquired understanding and practical skills related to different immunization techniques, surpassing the expected level.
When asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being least important and 5 being most important, which knowledge or skills from the provided list should be prioritized in teaching students about vaccination, the professors identified an understanding of vaccine-preventable diseases and communication skills as the most crucial (Table 4).
Table 4
What are the most important knowledge/skills to convey to teachers regarding vaccination, on a scale from 1 to 5 in which 1 is the least important and 5 the most important (n = 61)
Likert scale
|
Rationale, context, and history of immunization
|
Key aspects of immunology
|
Key aspects of vaccines development
|
Vaccine-preventable diseases
|
Immunization policy and schedules
|
Future prospects
|
Communication skills
|
Practical skills
|
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1,6%
|
0
|
1,6%
|
1,6%
|
0
|
1,6%
|
2
|
4.9%
|
3,3%
|
1,6%
|
0
|
1,6%
|
3,3%
|
1,6%
|
3,3%
|
3
|
16,4%
|
11,5%
|
13,1%
|
1,6%
|
11,5%
|
11,5%
|
6,6%
|
9,8%
|
4
|
11,5%
|
21,3%
|
8,2%
|
6,6%
|
14,8%
|
19,7%
|
14,8%
|
11,5%
|
5
|
39,3%
|
34,4%
|
49,2%
|
65,6%
|
47,5%
|
37,7%
|
50,8%
|
44,3%
|
Missing
|
27.9%
|
29.5%
|
26,2%
|
26,2%
|
23%
|
26.2%
|
26,2%
|
29.5%
|
The students considered development communication and practical skills to be the most important (Table 5).
Tabel 5 What are the most important knowledge/skills to convey to students regarding vaccination, on a scale from 1 to 5 in which 1 is the least important and 5 the most important (n=53)
Likert scale
|
Rationale, context, and history of immunization
|
Key aspects of immunology
|
Key aspects of vaccines development
|
Vaccine-preventable diseases
|
Immunization policy and schedules
|
Future prospects
|
Communication skills
|
Practical skills
|
|
1
|
0
|
1.9%
|
1.9%
|
1.9%
|
1,9%
|
0
|
1.9%
|
0
|
2
|
9.4%
|
2.8%
|
5.7%
|
0
|
9.4%
|
13,2%
|
3.8%
|
3,8%
|
3
|
26.4%
|
15.1%
|
5.7%
|
1,9%
|
15.1%
|
11,5%
|
11.3%
|
7.5%
|
4
|
24.5%
|
24.5%
|
24.5%
|
3.8%
|
18.9%
|
28.3%
|
13.2%
|
13.2%
|
5
|
39.6%
|
52.8%
|
60.4%
|
90.6%
|
28%
|
49.1%
|
66%
|
69.8%
|
Missing
|
0
|
1.9%
|
1.9%
|
1.9%
|
1.9%
|
1.9%
|
3.8%
|
5.7%
|
The survey, which was conducted to assess perceptions of the necessity of a specialized vaccinology course, yielded divergent findings among professors and students. Among the professors surveyed, 47% deemed the specialized course unnecessary. Conversely, 23% of the professors advocated for its essentiality, recommending its integration into the curriculum during the 5th or 6th academic year. Thirty percent abstained from responding to the survey question.
The student cohort exhibited a greater inclination toward the necessity of a specialized vaccinology course, with 68% affirming its importance. Twenty percent of the student respondents disagreed with the necessity of such a course. Additionally, a segment of the student responses, accounting for 11%, remained unrecorded due to nonresponse.