A total of 487 students participated in the quantitative part of the study (response rate 77%). Female students were slightly more (50.8%) than male students (49.2%). Students from Nairobi MTC comprised 44.2% of participants while students from the Department of Nursing formed the majority (31.2%) of the participants. Most students were in their 3rd year of study (42.2%) and had been in the college for 3 years (39.1%) (Table 1).
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the quantitative survey respondents
Factors
|
Characteristic
|
Frequency
|
Percentage(%)
|
Age (n=449)
|
Mean (Std.Dev)
Median
Range
|
22.5 (2.81)
22
18,40
|
|
Sex (n=486)
|
Male
Female
|
239
247
|
49.2
50.8
|
Campus (n=486)
|
Kisii
Kakamega
Nairobi
Embu
Eldoret
Portreiz
|
53
57
215
32
60
69
|
10.9
11.7
44.2
6.6
12.4
14.2
|
Department (n=474)
|
Medical Laboratory Sciences
Nursing
Biomedical Engineering
Environmental Health
Physiotherapy
Medical Imaging Services
Clinical Medicine
Pharmacy
|
83
148
50
32
20
26
58
57
|
17.5
31.2
10.6
6.8
4.2
5.5
12.2
12.0
|
Year of Study (n=486)
|
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year
|
118
158
205
5
|
24.3
32.5
42.2
1.0
|
Duration at KMTC (n=486)
|
< 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
>= 4 years
|
106
71
106
190
13
|
21.8
14.6
21.8
39.1
2.7
|
Awareness and Knowledge about Hepatitis B infection
The reported major sources of information about vaccines and immunization were KMTC management and course work (Figure 2). While the majority of students (94.6%) were aware that HBV vaccination was provided by the College’s vaccination program, fewer (53.3%) knew that vaccination against typhoid fever was also available. On the question of infectivity of HBV, 58.6% were aware that HBV is more infectious than HIV and that it can lead to development of liver cancer (59.5%). We also sought to find out the students’ knowledge on the known modes of HBV transmission as outlined by the WHO (31) (Table 2). Majority of them (76.8%) knew that HBV can be transmitted through contact with open wounds and cuts and transfusion of contaminated blood or blood products (88.1%) among others (Table 2).
Table 2 Student responses to the known modes of transmission of HBV
Which of the following are the modes of transmission of HBV?*
|
Yes n(%)
|
No n(%)
|
Transfusion of contaminated blood or blood products (n=451)
|
429 (95.1)
|
22 (4.9)
|
Unprotected sexual intercourse (n=430)
|
310 (72.1)
|
120 (27.9)
|
Mother to child transmission (n=407)
|
301 (75.0)
|
106 (26.0)
|
Scarification, tattooing and shaving (n=381)
|
226 (59.3)
|
155 (40.7)
|
Handling contaminated surfaces (n=397)
|
271 (68.3)
|
126 (31.7)
|
Handling contaminated equipment (n=401)
|
294 (73.3)
|
107 (26.7)
|
Splashes from contaminated fluids (n=398)
|
334 (83.9)
|
64 (16.1)
|
Needle-stick injuries (n=423)
|
392 (92.7)
|
31(7.3)
|
Cosmetic procedures (n=395)
|
249 (63.0)
|
146 (37.0)
|
Dental procedures (n=377)
|
223 (59.2)
|
154 (40.9)
|
Injecting drug use (n=417)
|
372 (89.2)
|
45 (10.8)
|
* All the modes listed are demonstrated modes of transmission of HBV (31)
Awareness and knowledge about HBV vaccination
Most respondents (88.17%) believe that vaccination against HBV can protect one against acquiring the disease. A majority (75.3%) of respondents knew the correct mode of administration of the vaccine. However, only 43.2% knew that the hepatitis B vaccine is given in three doses. Majority of the students (73.0%) knew that individuals whose jobs involve contact with blood should be vaccinated against HBV (Table 3)
Table 3 Students’ responses to groups of people who should receive vaccination against HBV .
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation, who should be vaccinated against hepatitis B virus?
Newborn babies (n=374)
|
N
199
|
%
53.1
|
Children and adolescents who were not vaccinated in infancy(n=482)
|
225
|
46.2
|
Individuals with multiple sexual partners (n=482)
|
111
|
22.8
|
Individuals seeking treatment for Sexually Transmitted Infections or Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection (n=482)
|
101
|
21.0
|
Injecting drug users (n=481)
|
143
|
29.7
|
Individuals whose jobs involve contact with blood (n=482)
|
352
|
73.0
|
Patients undergoing dialysis (n=482)
|
123
|
25.5
|
Individuals with chronic liver disease (n=479)
|
146
|
30.5
|
Attitudes towards HBV vaccination
Most of the respondents (95.1%) felt that KMTC should be involved in hepatitis B vaccination of its students. Further, most students reported that they would recommend the vaccine to fellow students with the main reason for recommendation being to protect oneself from infection (Table 4).
Table 4 Students’ responses to whom they would recommend the vaccine and reasons for recommendation
Would you recommend the HBV vaccine for the following groups of people?
|
|
|
|
Yes (n %)
|
No (n %)
|
Fellow students (n=452)
|
442 (97.8)
|
10 (2.2)
|
Newborns (n=356)
|
233 (65.4)
|
123 (34.6)
|
Infants (n=348)
|
234 (67.2)
|
114(32.8)
|
Adolescents (n=393)
|
356 (90.6)
|
37(9.4)
|
Adults (n=390)
|
345 (88.5)
|
45 (11.5)
|
Why would you recommend the HBV vaccine?
|
|
|
To protect oneself (n=449)
|
445 (99.1)
|
4 (0.9)
|
To protect patients (n=378)
|
338 (89.4)
|
40 (10.6)
|
To protect your sexual partner (n=357)
|
261 (73.1)
|
96 (26.9)
|
To protect others (n=393)
|
361 (91.9)
|
32 (8.1)
|
To prevent mother-to-child transmission (n=375)
|
301 (80.3)
|
74 (19.7)
|
Majority of students strongly agreed that all students should get vaccination against HBV before proceeding to their practical placement because of the risk of contracting HBV during clinical procedures. There was also strong agreement that HBV vaccination should be mandatory for all HCWs and students (Figure 3).
Practices
Vaccination against HBV
To investigate the students’ vaccination status, we asked the following questions: Have you ever been vaccinated against hepatitis B? Yes/No; If yes, how many doses have you received to date? There were 407 students who responded to both questions and these were classified into: Full vaccination(3 or 4 doses received); partial vaccination (1 or 2 doses received) and no vaccination (no doses received).
Majority of the respondents (349/407;85.8%) reported to ever having been vaccinated against HBV. However, full vaccination was reported by only 20.2% (82/407) with majority having received partial vaccination: 65.6% (267/407). No vaccination was reported by 14.3% (58/407) students. The main reasons for not having had full vaccination was that the vaccine was not available when they went for it (35.8%) and that the vaccine dose was not yet due (29.4%). Most students received the vaccine within their campuses (63.8% in the students/staff clinic; 31.0% within the college premises other than the clinic). In most cases, a college healthcare worker vaccinated the students (73.1%). There were no side effects reported by the majority of vaccinated students (67.8%) while swelling at the site of injection was the most reported side effect (57.6%).
Infection prevention during practical placement
During practical placement, 84.2% of students reported that they always put on gloves when carrying out clinical procedures such as cleaning wounds and cuts. However, 21.0% reported to having had a needle stick injury (NSI). Of those who reported NSIs, 18.3% took no action with only 38.7% reporting the matter immediately and getting post exposure prophylaxis that included the HBV vaccine.
Vaccine Accessibility
Majority of students (85.3%) reported that the cost for HBV vaccination was included in the college fees. However, only 40.8% reported that the HBV vaccine is available in their colleges on a continuous basis, with 41.3% reporting that the schedule for each round of the HBV vaccination program is not well publicized. Despite this, 70.1% of respondents still prefer to receive the HBV vaccination within their campuses.
Association of vaccine uptake with sociodemographic characteristics
We investigated the association between HBV vaccine uptake and selected sociodemographic characteristics. We defined vaccination status as (i) No vaccination for zero doses received (ii)partial vaccination for 1 or 2 doses received and (iii) full vaccination for 3 or 4 doses received. The campus, year of study and length of time as a student had a statistically significant association with vaccine uptake (Table 5).
Table 5 Association of vaccine uptake with selected sociodemographic characteristics
|
HBV Vaccination Status
|
|
|
|
None a
|
Partial b
|
Full c
|
Total
|
Pearson chi2 p-value
|
Gender
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male
|
30
|
122
|
43
|
195
|
X2=1.5380; p=0.463
|
Female
|
28
|
145
|
39
|
212
|
|
Total
|
58
|
349
|
82
|
407
|
|
Campus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kisii
|
11
|
33
|
4
|
48
|
X2=34.4914; p=<0.001
|
Kakamega
|
11
|
26
|
13
|
50
|
|
Nairobi
|
18
|
120
|
37
|
175
|
|
Embu
|
0
|
22
|
9
|
31
|
|
Eldoret
|
10
|
21
|
15
|
46
|
|
Portreitz
|
8
|
45
|
3
|
56
|
|
Total
|
58
|
267
|
81
|
406
|
|
Department
|
|
|
|
|
|
Medical Laboratory Sciences
|
18
|
33
|
17
|
68
|
X2=55.4679; p=<0.001
|
Nursing
|
13
|
90
|
19
|
122
|
|
Biomedical Engineering
|
15
|
18
|
7
|
40
|
|
Environmental Health
|
0
|
22
|
9
|
31
|
|
Physiotherapy
|
0
|
14
|
4
|
18
|
|
Imaging
|
4
|
9
|
7
|
20
|
|
Clinical Medicine
|
1
|
46
|
8
|
55
|
|
Pharmacy
|
5
|
30
|
8
|
43
|
|
Total
|
56
|
262
|
79
|
397
|
|
Year of Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st year
|
31
|
46
|
6
|
83
|
X2=87.3760; p=<0.001
|
2nd year
|
22
|
102
|
14
|
138
|
|
3rd year
|
3
|
116
|
61
|
180
|
|
4th year
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
5
|
|
Total
|
58
|
266
|
82
|
406
|
|
Length of time as student
|
|
|
|
|
|
<1 year
|
31
|
38
|
5
|
74
|
X2=115.7315; p=<0.001
|
1 year
|
8
|
42
|
9
|
59
|
|
2 years
|
9
|
74
|
12
|
95
|
|
3 years
|
2
|
110
|
54
|
166
|
|
>4 years
|
8
|
2
|
2
|
12
|
|
Total
|
58
|
266
|
82
|
406
|
|
a 0 vaccine doses received; b 1 or 2 vaccine doses received; c 3 or 4 vaccine doses received
Qualitative findings
The main themes that emerged from the two focus group discussions were (i) availability and accessibility of the HBV vaccines in the campuses; (ii) attitude towards the vaccination exercise; and (iii) institutionalization of the vaccination program. Quotes with frequently expressed sentiments have been added under each theme.
Availability and accessibility of HBV vaccine in the colleges
Participants in both FGDs felt that there was low availability and accessibility of the vaccine in the campuses. This was especially in those campuses far from KMTC’s headquarters (Nairobi). The main contributing factors cited were delays in supply of the vaccine, lack of transportation of the vaccines to the campuses, lack of vaccine storage facilities in some campuses, inadequate numbers of staff members to carry out the vaccination exercise and shortage of supplies needed for the vaccination exercise. Consequently, some students did not receive the full course of the vaccine prior to practical placement.
“It has not been very easy, at times the vaccines are not there and no storage facility especially outside Nairobi and of course transportation [is a challenge]” [Staff 2]
“It [vaccine supply] is not [consistent] because some doses are missing and therefore, we are forced to give unrecommended doses. We have back logs and at times the students refuse to [go to] the wards.” [Staff 1]
The shortage of staff members to carry out the vaccination exercise was expressed in both FGDs. This led to senior students working as vaccinators. The respondents felt that this had the potential to expose students to risks of receiving an injection from an unqualified practitioner.
“Lack of qualified vaccinators [is a challenge]. In most colleges, we use senior students to help in the vaccination process”[Staff 1]
“…..it [vaccination] is done by senior students who are not qualified….”[Student 6]
Poor timing of the HBV vaccine doses also arose in the discussions. Due to delays in supply of the vaccine, students were exposed to the practical attachment without having received the full course of the vaccine (3 or 4 doses).
“I wish the supply [of the vaccine] can be consistent. We should get the vaccines before students go for their attachment…….when the vaccine gets late, the students are already in the rural attachment and [it is] very difficult to get them.” [Staff 5]
“Yes [we should be vaccinated before practical attachment]because we are going to be exposed in the wards.” [Student 3]
Attitude towards the vaccination process at KMTC
Students felt that the delay in getting the vaccine was due to an unconcerned administration. In addition, they felt that the administration had not put in place proper awareness creation channels about the availability of the vaccine to its students.
“The college is not doing enough because there is no communication. They wait for the students to push for it…”[Student 9]
Staff members felt that implementation of the vaccination program was not efficient. They felt that poor monitoring and assessment of the vaccine supply chain as well as lengthy procurement processes were to blame for delays.
“…some institutions[campuses] only remember [to issue first dose to] new students and [are] not able to give the second dose. Major issue is procurement.”[Staff ]
Institutionalization and sustainability of the vaccination program
There were mixed feelings about the need to continue with the vaccination program at KMTC. While some staff and students felt that the program should continue albeit with some improvement, others felt that the program should be stopped and students allowed to get the vaccine outside the college.
“The system can be improved…every campus should have its vaccine. Storage should first be improved.”[Staff 11]
“No, I don’t support the current structure but I would prefer it outside the KMTC.”[Student 9]
Triangulation of Quantitative and Qualitative findings
Delay in receiving the vaccine was highlighted in both the qualitative and quantitative studies. The FGDs provided insight into the causes of the delays which included centralization of the vaccine procurement process in the headquarters thus necessitating transport of the vaccine to campuses, lack of transportation and storage facilities at the peripheral facilities. Inadequate staff members to carry out the vaccination exercise also affected the accessibility of the vaccine. While the quantitative study showed that majority of students supported the continuation of the vaccination program, the qualitative study offered insight into opinions both for its continuation and discontinuation.