This paper provides a consolidated overview of public and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards vaccination in Europe by bringing together for the first time evidence across various vaccines, countries and populations. The paper relies on an extensive review of empirical literature published in English after 2009, as well as an analysis of unpublished market research data from member companies of Vaccines Europe. Our synthesis suggests that hesitant attitudes to vaccination are prevalent and may be increasing since the influenza pandemic of 2009. We define hesitancy as an expression of concern or doubt about the value or safety of vaccination. This means that hesitant attitudes are not confined only to those who refuse vaccination or those who encourage others to refuse vaccination. For many people, vaccination attitudes are shaped not just by healthcare professionals but also by an array of other information sources, including online and social media sources. We find that healthcare professionals report increasing challenges to building a trustful relationship with patients, through which they might otherwise allay concerns and reassure hesitant patients. We also find a range of reasons for vaccination attitudes, only some of which can be characterised as being related to lack of awareness or misinformation. Reasons that relate to issues of mistrust are cited more commonly in the literature than reasons that relate to information deficit. The importance of trust in the institutions involved with vaccination is discussed in terms of implications for researchers and policy-makers; we suggest that rebuilding this trust is a multi-stakeholder problem requiring a co-ordinated strategy.

No abstract

The CLAHRCs pursued a strategy that can be categorized as one of flexible comprehensiveness; i.e. their programmes have been flexible and responsive and they have used a range of approaches that seek to match the diverse aspects of the complex issues they face. Key features include their work on combining a range of knowledge transfer and exchange strategies, their efforts to promote cultural change, and the freedom to experiment, learn and adapt. Although the CLAHRCs do not, by themselves, have the remit or resources to bring about wholesale service improvement in health care, they do have features that would allow them to play a key role in some of the wider initiatives that encourage innovation.

No abstract

BackgroundIn 2008, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in England established nine Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) to develop partnerships between universities and local NHS organisations focused on improving patient outcomes through the conduct and application of applied health research.ObjectivesThe study explored how effectively the CLAHRCs supported the ‘translation’ of research into patient benefit, and developed ways of doing applied research that maximised its chances of being useful to the service and the capacity of the NHS to respond. It focused on three issues: (1) how the NHS influenced the CLAHRCs, and vice versa; (2) how effective multistakeholder and multidisciplinary research and implementation teams were built in the CLAHRCs; (3) how the CLAHRCs supported the use of research knowledge to change commissioning and clinical behaviour for patient benefit.MethodsThe study adopted an adaptive and emergent approach and incorporated a formative evaluation. An initial phase mapped the landscape of all nine CLAHRCs and the context within which they were established, using document analysis, workshops and interviews, and a literature review. This mapping exercise identified the three research questions that were explored in phase 2 through a stakeholder survey of six CLAHRCs, in-depth case studies of two CLAHRCs, validation interviews with all nine CLAHRCs and the NIHR, and document review.Results(1) The local remit and the requirement for matched NHS funding enhanced NHS influence on the CLAHRCs. The CLAHRCs achieved positive change among those most directly involved, but the larger issue of whether or not the CLAHRCs can influence others in and across the NHS remains unresolved. (2) The CLAHRCs succeeded in engaging different stakeholder groups, and explored what encouraged specific groups to become involved. Being responsive to people’s concerns and demonstrating ‘quick wins’ were both important. (3) There was some evidence that academics were becoming more interested in needs-driven research, and that commissioners were seeing the CLAHRCs as a useful source of support. A growing number of completed projects had demonstrated an impact on clinical practice.ConclusionsThe CLAHRCs have included NHS decision-makers in research and researchers in service decision-making, and encouraged research-informed practice. All the CLAHRCs (as collaborations) adopted relationship models. However, as the complexities of the challenges they faced became clearer, it became obvious that a focus on multidisciplinary relationships was necessary, but not sufficient on its own. Attention also has to be paid to the systems within and through which these relationships operate.Recommendations for researchFuture research should compare areas with an Academic Health Science Network (AHSN) and a CLAHRC with areas with just an AHSN, to understand the difference CLAHRCs make. There should be work on understanding implementation, such as the balancing of rigour and relevance in intervention studies; systemic barriers to and facilitators of implementation; and tailoring improvement interventions. There is also a need to better understand the factors that support the explicit use of research evidence across the NHS, and the processes and mechanisms that support the sustainability and scale-up of implementation projects. Research should place emphasis on examining the role of patient and public involvement in CLAHRCs and of the relation between CLAHRCs and NHS commissioners.FundingThe NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.