We aimed to understand practice nurses’ perceptions about how they engage with parents during consultations concerning the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

The incidence of measles is increasing globally. Immunisation is recognised as the most significant intervention to influence global health in modern times, although many factors are known to adversely affect immunisation uptake. Practice nurses are a key member of the primary care team responsible for delivering immunisation. However, little is known how practice nurses perceive this role.

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 15 practice nurses in England using a qualitative descriptive approach. Diversity in terms of years of experience and range of geographical practice settings were sought. These interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and open-coded using qualitative content analysis to manage, analyse and identify themes.

Three themes were derived from the data: engaging with parents, the informed practice nurse and dealing with parental concerns: strategies to promote MMR uptake. During their consultations, practice nurses encountered parents who held strong opinions about the MMR vaccine and perceived this to be related to the parents’ socio-demographic background. Practice nurses sought to provide parents with tailored and accurate sources of information to apprise their immunisation decision-making about the MMR vaccine.

This study aimed to identify nurses’ views on influenza vaccination and factors that might explain why they do not receive influenza vaccinations, and to examine any ethical issues encountered in the vaccination process.

All 27 European Union member states and 2 other European countries recommended influenza vaccinations for healthcare workers in 2014–15. Data show that the influenza vaccination rate among nurses in Slovenia is even lower than in other European countries. Slovenian study showed that 41.7% of the respondents had received both the pandemic and the seasonal vaccine. Doctors had the highest level of vaccine coverage, with 44.1%, followed by registered nurses at 23.4%, whereas the lowest level was found among nursing assistants and nursing technicians (17%) at a Ljubljana health clinic.

A qualitative study was carried out. Nineteen nurses who did not receive influenza vaccination took part in the study. Thematic interviews were conducted in December 2018. Interview transcripts were read, coded, reviewed and labelled by three independent researchers. The collected material was processed using qualitative content analysis.

Thirteen categories and four themes were identified and coded, which enabled an understanding of the nurses’ views regarding influenza vaccination. Most of their experiences were positive in one way: they recognised the importance of vaccination and people’s awareness of it. However, they did not obtain the influenza vaccine themselves. The main barriers to vaccination were doubt regarding the vaccine’s effectiveness, the potential for side effects, the belief that young healthcare professionals are well protected and not at high risk, an overrated trust in their own immune systems, and the belief that pharmaceutical industry marketing was targeting them. The nurses suggested several ways that vaccination could be promoted and improved vaccination coverage achieved. These findings call attention to the importance of recognising both the need for targeted information for the nurses and the need for different approaches to healthcare provision.

In our study, we intended to observe the impact of recommending the pneumococcal vaccine to individuals who were called on the phone or interviewed face-to-face by their doctors on vaccination rates.

Two hundred individuals who were 65 years old and older were included in our study. They were questioned about their awareness regarding adult immunisation, and their knowledge level and vaccination statuses were determined regarding the tetanus, influenza, hepatitis, and pneumococcal vaccines. After they were given information about the pneumococcal vaccine, they were asked about their interest in being vaccinated. Those who agreed to be vaccinated were invited and vaccinated.

According to the questionnaire, 150 people (75%) knew of the influenza vaccine, 130 people (65%) knew of the tetanus vaccine, 53 people (26.5%) knew of the hepatitis B vaccine, and 49 people (24.5%) knew of the pneumococcal vaccine. A total of five people (2.5%) had received the pneumococcal vaccine. Fifty-eight of 97 patients (59.8%) who completed the questionnaire during a phone call and 84 of 103 patients (81.6%) who completed the questionnaire during a face-to-face interview received the pneumococcal vaccine. As a result, the rates of pneumococcal vaccination increased from 2.5% before the study to 73.5% after the study.

The findings show that the vaccination rates for pneumococcus were very low among our participants. The immunisation rates increased when doctors provided consultation to participants about adult immunisation.

We sought to establish the impact on vaccine uptake of sending out a single appointment letter inviting patients to attend a vaccine clinic.

Coeliac disease is associated with splenic dysfunction and so patients with coeliac disease are at a higher risk of overwhelming infection. Additional vaccinations are recommended for these individuals to provide additional protection against infection.

We retrospectively identified 54 patients with diagnosed coeliac disease, and all vaccines previously received by these patients. By comparing this to the Green Book [Department of Health (2013) Immunisation of individuals with underlying medical conditions: the green book, chapter 7, London: Department of Health. Retrieved 26 February 2019 from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566853/Green_Book_Chapter7.pdf], we determined the patients who were due vaccinations and the specific vaccines they were due. An invitation letter was then sent out to patients requiring further vaccinations and vaccine uptake for these patients was re-audited six months later.

Our results show a mild increase in the total uptake of vaccines six months after the letter was sent out, from 38.6% to 49.2%.

To introduce systems biology as a conceptual framework for research in family medicine, based on empirical data from a case study on the prediction of influenza vaccination outcomes. This concept is primarily oriented towards planning preventive interventions and includes systematic data recording, a multi-step research protocol and predictive modelling.

Factors known to affect responses to influenza vaccination include older age, past exposure to influenza viruses, and chronic diseases; however, constructing useful prediction models remains a challenge, because of the need to identify health parameters that are appropriate for general use in modelling patients’ responses.

The sample consisted of 93 patients aged 50–89 years (median 69), with multiple medical conditions, who were vaccinated against influenza. Literature searches identified potentially predictive health-related parameters, including age, gender, diagnoses of the main chronic ageing diseases, anthropometric measures, and haematological and biochemical tests. By applying data mining algorithms, patterns were identified in the data set. Candidate health parameters, selected in this way, were then combined with information on past influenza virus exposure to build the prediction model using logistic regression.

A highly significant prediction model was obtained, indicating that by using a systems biology approach it is possible to answer unresolved complex medical uncertainties. Adopting this systems biology approach can be expected to be useful in identifying the most appropriate target groups for other preventive programmes.

This study explored health visitors’ perception of their role in the universal childhood immunisation programme with particular emphasis on influencing factors and communication strategies.

The majority of parents’ consent to immunisation, but some find decision-making in this area difficult and have unmet information needs. In the United Kingdom, health visitors routinely provide immunisation information for parents, whereas general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses tend to administer vaccines and respond to parents/carers’ questions. Research has investigated health professionals’ views and knowledge about immunisation, but less is understood about health visitors’ role and how they communicate with parents.

Following the Local Research Ethics and Research Governance permissions, all health visitors (n = 120) working in one county in the United Kingdom were invited to participate in the study. Semistructured interviews (n = 22) were undertaken using a prompt guide. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis using an iterative approach was used to explore the data facilitated by NVIVO™ software.

Five themes emerged from the interviews. These were health visitors’ professional role; identity and perceived barriers and communication strategies, parents’ right to choose, confidence in measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and communicating with migrant families about immunisation. There were differences between the health visitors in their perceptions of their roles, skills and knowledge and communication strategies. Health visitors perceived that GPs and practice nurses took a paternalistic approach to the provision of immunisation information, while they used a parental decision-making model. Health visitors reported a loss of professional confidence following the MMR crisis.

Given the evidence that some parents find it difficult to gain the information they need about immunisation and health visitors’ acknowledgement that their usual communication models were not effective during the MMR crisis, we feel specific communication skills training is needed to enable health professionals to provide parents with appropriate decision support.