The benefit of the doubt or doubts over benefits? A systematic literature review of perceived risks of vaccines in European populations.

OBJECTIVES: The success of vaccination strategies depends in part on population perceptions of benefits and risks of vaccines and related confidence in vaccination. Better knowledge of public concerns about vaccines and what is driving them is needed to inform vaccination strategies and communications. This literature reviewer examined studies on vaccine and vaccination risk perceptions and concerns across European populations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies published between 2004 and 2014 in Europe. A descriptive analysis was performed. FINDINGS: A total of 145 articles were selected, most of which were conducted in the UK, the Netherlands and France and studied seasonal influenza, HPV and pandemic influenza vaccination. Across all countries and vaccines, the primary area of concern was vaccine safety, followed by perceptions of low likelihood of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), perceived low severity of VPDs, beliefs that vaccines do not work, and overall lack of information. Concerns were found to be vaccine-, country- and population-specific. CONCLUSION: In addition to identifying concerns about vaccination in Europe, this study confirmed the notion that individuals have many safety concerns about vaccination and often believe that the risks of vaccination outweigh their benefits. More research needs to be conducted to explore the impact of different types of communication strategies, which would frame the benefits of vaccination as well as risks of not vaccinating. Strategies to better inform public perceptions of vaccines should include the provision of unbiased, comprehensive information tailored to population information needs, and delivered using multiple and new communication technologies such as social media

The case for hospital-based palliative care

18 pagesDescribes how hospitals are delivering improved palliative care

Hospital-hospice partnerships in palliative care: creating a continuum of service

42 pages.Reports on the cooperation of hospitals with hospices to provide palliative care

The management of type 2 diabetes with fixed‐ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal‐bolus therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart): a short‐term cost‐effectiveness analysis in the UK setting

Aim: To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of IDegLira versus basal‐bolus therapy (BBT) with insulin glargine U100 plus up to 4 times daily insulin aspart for the management of type 2 diabetes in the UK. Methods: A Microsoft Excel model was used to evaluate the cost‐utility of IDegLira versus BBT over a 1‐year time horizon. Clinical input data were taken from the treat‐to‐target DUAL VII trial, conducted in patients unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%) with basal insulin, with IDegLira associated with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and reduced body mass index (BMI) in comparison with BBT, with similar HbA1c reductions. Costs (expressed in GBP) and event‐related disutilities were taken from published sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: IDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.05 quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) versus BBT, due to reductions in non‐severe hypoglycaemic episodes and BMI with IDegLira. Costs were higher with IDegLira by GBP 303 per patient, leading to an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 5924 per QALY gained for IDegLira versus BBT. ICERs remained below GBP 20 000 per QALY gained across a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: IDegLira is a cost‐effective alternative to BBT with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, providing equivalent glycaemic control with a simpler treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin in the UK