A national survey of parents' views on childhood vaccinations in Ireland.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy is complex and multifactorial and a threat to global health. Uptake of some recommended childhood immunisations in Ireland remains below World Health Organisation targets. The aim of this study was to determine factors associated with vaccine uptake in Ireland. METHODS: A cross-sectional, national survey of parental attitudes towards childhood vaccination for children aged 0 to 48 months was conducted between June and August 2021 (N = 855). A descriptive analysis of questionnaire responses was conducted. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to identify the association of demographic parental characteristics and parental vaccine attitude scores with a delay in or lack of parental vaccine acceptance. RESULTS: There was a strongly positive sentiment towards childhood vaccinations. Self-reported uptake of recommended vaccines was 96.1 % with a strong belief in the importance (94.4 %) and safety (89.2 %) of vaccines. Trust in official vaccine information sources was high; 91.5 % and 89.2 % reported trust in the vaccine information provided by healthcare professionals and the Health Service Executive (HSE) respectively. The most commonly identified reasons for missed vaccines were concerns about safety and vaccine side effects. In multivariable regression analysis, parental trust in official vaccine information sources was a significant predictor of vaccine acceptance. For every one unit increase in the median parental trust in official vaccine information score, the odds of a parent having reduced vaccine acceptance decreased significantly (aOR 0.27 95 % CI 0.16, 0.46, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Understanding parental attitudes towards vaccination will inform the development of evidence-informed, targeted interventions to increase childhood immunisation uptake. Vaccine information for parents should focus on vaccine safety and public health action should be taken to build trust and engage communities in order to increase and sustain the uptake of childhood vaccines delivered as part of the national childhood primary immunisation programme in Ireland.

Views on COVID-19 vaccination of young children in Ireland, results from a cross-sectional survey of parents.

Vaccination of children aged 5 years and older is recommended as part of a multifaceted strategy to protect children against SARS CoV-2 infection and serious disease, and to control the spread of infection. COVID-19 vaccine trials in children aged less than5 years are underway, however, parental acceptance of vaccines for this age group is unknown. Between June and August 2021, a cross-sectional national survey of parental attitudes towards childhood vaccination in Ireland was conducted. Parents of children aged 0-48 months were surveyed to determine their attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines for their children. A total of 855 parents were surveyed. Overall, 50.6 % reported that they intend to vaccinate their child, 28.7 % reported that they did not intend to vaccinate and 20.2 % were unsure. Among those who stated that they did not intend to vaccinate their child, concern about risks and side effects of vaccination was the primary reason reported (45.6 %). The most frequently reported information needs related to side effects of the vaccine (64.7 %) and vaccine safety (60.3 %). Results of the multivariable analysis showed that believing COVID-19 can be a serious illness in children was a strong predictor of parental intention to vaccinate (aOR 4.88, 95 % CI 2.68, 8.91, p-value < 0.001). In comparison with Irish-born parents, parents born in a Central and Eastern European country were less likely to report intention to vaccinate (aOR 0.21, 95 % CI 0.09, 0.47, p-value, <0.001). Parental belief in vaccine importance and safety and parental trust in official vaccine information sources were associated with increased parental intention to vaccinate. Understanding parental attitudes to vaccination of young children against COVID-19 is important to tailor the provision of information to parents' needs, and to inform the development of vaccination information and communication campaigns for current and future COVID-19 immunisations programmes for children.

Barriers and facilitators in using a Clinical Decision Support System for fall risk management for older people: a European survey.

PURPOSE: Fall-Risk Increasing Drugs (FRIDs) are an important and modifiable fall-risk factor. A Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) could support doctors in optimal FRIDs deprescribing. Understanding barriers and facilitators is important for a successful implementation of any CDSS. We conducted a European survey to assess barriers and facilitators to CDSS use and explored differences in their perceptions. METHODS: We examined and compared the relative importance and the occurrence of regional differences of a literature-based list of barriers and facilitators for CDSS usage among physicians treating older fallers from 11 European countries. RESULTS: We surveyed 581 physicians (mean age 44.9 years, 64.5% female, 71.3% geriatricians). The main barriers were technical issues (66%) and indicating a reason before overriding an alert (58%). The main facilitators were a CDSS that is beneficial for patient care (68%) and easy-to-use (64%). We identified regional differences, e.g., expense and legal issues were barriers for significantly more Eastern-European physicians compared to other regions, while training was selected less often as a facilitator by West-European physicians. Some physicians believed that due to the medical complexity of their patients, their own clinical judgement is better than advice from the CDSS. CONCLUSION: When designing a CDSS for Geriatric Medicine, the patient's medical complexity must be addressed whilst maintaining the doctor's decision-making autonomy. For a successful CDSS implementation in Europe, regional differences in barrier perception should be overcome. Equipping a CDSS with prediction models has the potential to provide individualized recommendations for deprescribing FRIDs in older falls patients.

International Validation of the Turkish Inappropriate Medication Use in the Elderly (TIME) Criteria Set: A Delphi Panel Study.

OBJECTIVE: Explicit screening tools and implicit evaluation methods have been developed to assist healthcare professionals in the management of pharmacotherapy in older adults. As prescribing habits and locally available medications vary considerably between countries, guides tailored to the needs of specific regions may be required. We aimed to report the results of the international Delphi validation study for the Turkish Inappropriate Medication use in the Elderly (TIME) criteria set, which aims to detect inappropriate prescribing in older adults in Eastern Europe. METHODS: The study was conducted between June 2019 and March 2020. Delphi rounds were conducted by the TIME international working group, which included 11 internationally recognized experts in geriatric pharmacotherapy as Delphi panelists. They were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each TIME criterion, taking into account both the available evidence and their own experience. We used a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) and an online software program (SurveyMonkey®) to grade the level of agreement. Criteria with a median value of 1 or 2 and a 75th centile value of 1 or 2 were accepted, and criteria with a median value > 2 were rejected. Those with a median value of 1 or 2 but a 75th centile value > 2 were retained, to be assessed in the following round. The initial list of Delphi criteria comprised 153 TIME items. RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, 134 criteria were accepted and seven criteria were rejected, while 12 criteria did not achieve consensus, and so were not included in the final validated set of TIME criteria. CONCLUSION: We developed the internationally validated TIME criteria set based on a Delphi process involving international experts. The validation study suggests that the TIME criteria set can be applied in both central and Eastern European settings. Further studies are needed to assess the utility and benefit of the TIME criteria in reducing inappropriate drug use and improving clinical outcomes.

STOPPFall (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in older adults with high fall risk): a Delphi study by the EuGMS Task and Finish Group on Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are often reluctant to deprescribe fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs). Lack of knowledge and skills form a significant barrier and furthermore, there is no consensus on which medications are considered as FRIDs despite several systematic reviews. To support clinicians in the management of FRIDs and to facilitate the deprescribing process, STOPPFall (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in older adults with high fall risk) and a deprescribing tool were developed by a European expert group. METHODS: STOPPFall was created by two facilitators based on evidence from recent meta-analyses and national fall prevention guidelines in Europe. Twenty-four panellists chose their level of agreement on a Likert scale with the items in the STOPPFall in three Delphi panel rounds. A threshold of 70% was selected for consensus a priori. The panellists were asked whether some agents are more fall-risk-increasing than others within the same pharmacological class. In an additional questionnaire, panellists were asked in which cases deprescribing of FRIDs should be considered and how it should be performed. RESULTS: The panellists agreed on 14 medication classes to be included in the STOPPFall. They were mostly psychotropic medications. The panellists indicated 18 differences between pharmacological subclasses with regard to fall-risk-increasing properties. Practical deprescribing guidance was developed for STOPPFall medication classes. CONCLUSION: STOPPFall was created using an expert Delphi consensus process and combined with a practical deprescribing tool designed to optimise medication review. The effectiveness of these tools in falls prevention should be further evaluated in intervention studies.

Older people remain on blood pressure agents despite being hypotensive resulting in increased mortality and hospital admission.

BACKGROUND: the use of antihypertensive medication in older people in order to prevent cardiovascular events is well established. The use of such agents has been encouraged by incentive schemes in the United Kingdom including the Quality and Outcomes Framework. In addition, many guidelines recommend good blood pressure (BP) control in the elderly. However, in older people antihypertensives can cause adverse effects related to hypotension. AIM: the aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of low BP and impact on outcomes, particularly in the presence of antihypertensive treatment, in a primary care population of older people. DESIGN: a retrospective observational cohort study in people over the age of 70 years registered with primary care providers in Kent. RESULTS: a total of 11,167 patients over 70 years old were analysed, 6,373 female (57%). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was below 120 mmHg in 1,297 people (844 on antihypertensives), below 110 mmHg in 474 (313 on antihypertensives) and below 100 mmHg in 128 (89 on antihypertensives). Hypotension was independently associated with mortality, acute kidney injury and hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: the results demonstrate that low SBP is associated with adverse events, it is possible that the pursuit of BP control at a population level may lead to over-treatment in certain groups of patients. This may result in an increased incidence of adverse events particularly in older people.