Parents face barriers to vaccinating children, says report
'Easier access'
Since 2022, no childhood vaccine in the UK has met the World Health Organisation target of 95% of children vaccinated, which ensures protection of vulnerable people. As a result, measles and other preventable diseases have made a comeback.A commission of experts from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) spent a year looking at why.Dr Helen Stewart, officer for health improvement at RCPCH, said the steady decline in vaccination rates in a wealthy country like the UK was "extremely concerning". But she said vaccine hesitancy, when parents waver over getting their children vaccinated, "is only part of a very complex picture"."The reality is that there are many who simply need better support and easier access to appointments," Dr Stewart said.Although confidence in vaccines is still relatively high, the report found barriers to accessing jabs are why many families don't protect their children.Some of the most common barriers include:difficulties getting through to book appointments at GP surgeriesdifficulties getting time off work for appointmentslimited transport options or no parking at GP surgeriesnot seeing the same GP each time so lack of trustnot being able to speak to a GP or nurse to ask about the vaccineslack of reminders for jabs being sent out from GPnot enough clear information about what jabs their child needs and when"One of the findings of this new report is that parents have no easy way to check their child's vaccination status," says children's emergency medicine specialist, Dr Stewart."When I ask if the child is up to date with their vaccinations, the most common response is 'I think so'."Poorer families, some ethnic minority groups and migrant communities are much less likely to be vaccinated, and these inequalities have become more obvious since the pandemic, the report says.It also notes an absence of health visitors often means parents have no one they feel comfortable discussing vaccines openly with.
Digital red book
The report recommends using NHS apps to improve the experience of booking jabs, investing and expanding vaccination services, and funding health visitors to deliver some of them.It also calls on the development of the 'digital red book' to be finalised so parents can keep track of their children's vaccinations.The NHS website lists the full schedule of vaccinations for children, from babies, up to the age of 15.Dr Julie Yates, deputy director for immunisation programmes at UK Health Security Agency, said plans were in place to improve childhood vaccine uptake by ensuring more flexible appointment booking systems, making vaccines more widely available across different locations, and making access easier in all communities."Despite the challenges, it is also important to note that parents have high confidence in vaccinations with almost 90% agreeing vaccines are effective," Dr Yates said.Alison Morton, chief executive of the Institute for Health Visitors, said the report presented "a compelling case" to ensure babies and children are protected against serious diseases which can cause so much unnecessary harm.Helen Bedford, professor of children's health at University College London, said improvements needed investment in staff and infrastructure. "Our children have the right to be protected from preventable diseases which can cause illness, disability or even death," she said, adding that a fall in children getting their vaccines had resulted in the deaths of 11 young babies from whooping cough last year. Falling vaccinations among children isn't just an issue in the UK, in 2023 there were nearly 16 million children who had not had any vaccinations, most of them in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ministers face backbench calls to widen access to top tier of sickness benefits
Ministers are facing Labour backbench calls to widen access to their proposed top tier of sickness benefits. Labour backbencher Graeme Downie has proposed a welfare reform Bill amendment, so universal credit claimants with Parkinson's or multiple sclerosis who cannot work do not face repeated medical assessments to receive a payout. If MPs back his amendment, patients with 'evolving' needs who cannot work could also qualify for a higher rate of benefits. The Government's Bill has already cleared its first Commons hurdle at second reading, after work and pensions minister Sir Stephen Timms vowed not to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), with any changes coming in only after a review of the benefit. To meet his promise, ministers have had to table amendments to their own draft new law, to remove one of its seven clauses, which MPs will debate next Wednesday. Universal credit claimants with Parkinson's 'are already possibly struggling financially', Mr Downie told the PA news agency ahead of the debate. He added: 'The cost of living with a condition like Parkinson's can be very high. 'You may well require or need additional support.' The Dunfermline and Dollar MP said patients who struggle with their motor control might buy pre-chopped vegetables or chicken. 'Those things are expensive, so if you're already on universal credit and you're struggling, being able to do that significantly impacts your health, it significantly impacts your ability to live properly,' he continued. As part of the Government's reforms, the Department for Work and Pensions has proposed a new 'severe conditions criteria' for universal credit. Claimants in this category will be entitled to a higher rate of the benefit, and will not be routinely reassessed to receive money. To qualify, claimants must have limited capability for work or work-related activity (LCWRA) and symptoms which 'constantly' apply. Mr Downie's amendment would expand these criteria to claimants with 'a fluctuating condition'. It would cover 'conditions like Parkinson's but also multiple sclerosis, ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis), long Covid and a whole range of other conditions where, you know, in the morning things could be really good and in the afternoon things could be really bad, and even hour by hour things could change', he said. 'I felt it was necessary to table an amendment to really probe what the Government's position is on this, and ensuring that people with Parkinson's and conditions like that are not excluded from even applying and being considered.' Mr Downie's proposal has backing from 23 cross-party MPs. Juliet Tizzard, external relations director at Parkinson's UK, said: 'Criteria in the Bill say that a new claimant for the universal credit health payment will have to be 'constantly' unable to perform certain activities to qualify. 'This doesn't work for people with Parkinson's, whose symptoms change throughout the day. ' People with Parkinson's and other fluctuating conditions like multiple sclerosis will be effectively excluded from getting all the financial support they need. 'The Government has responded to our call and withdrawn the damaging restrictions to Pip. 'Now, they must do the same with the universal credit health element. The health of many people with Parkinson's is in their hands.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Labour's 10-year health plan for the NHS is bold, radical
The government's 10 Year health plan to revive, modernise and future-proof the NHS in England – has arrived as the service is facing a dual crisis. It has been unable for a decade now to provide the rapid access – to GPs, A&E care, surgery, ambulances and mental health support – which people need and used to get. Normalisation of anxiety-inducing, frightening and sometimes fatal delay has produced a less tangible, but also dangerous, crisis – of public satisfaction, born of a profound loss of trust that the NHS will be there for them or their loved ones when they need it. Barely one in five people in Britain are happy with the NHS. Polling by Ipsos this week, ahead of the NHS's 77th birthday on Saturday, found that about 60% of voters have seen little improvement in it during Labour's first year in office. About the same proportion do not expect things to be much better by the time of the next election in 2029. It is hyperbole to say, as the plan does, that 'the NHS now stands at an existential brink'. The dissatisfaction with access problems is acute – but behind it lies enduring public support for the service itself. However, it is no wonder Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting have acknowledged the seriousness of the patient's condition and diagnosed radical surgery. It is blindingly obvious that, as the plan says: 'The status quo is no longer an option.' The authors of the 168-page document have produced a serious, detailed and impressive piece of work. It is unsparing in describing the many failings that mean the NHS is not just often frustrating for patients to use but also ill equipped to deal with the relentless demand for care created by an ageing, growing and increasingly unhealthy population, which is unlikely to fall soon. It also charts a new course for a service so indispensable that it is part of the nation's DNA. Labour's repeated claim that the Conservatives had left the NHS 'broken' helped win them last year's general election. And it has allowed the party during its time in government to blame the service's every dysfunction – staff shortages, overcrowded hospitals, inadequate mental health care – on its predecessors. But that time is over. The plan implicitly acknowledges that this narrative, a frequent refrain by Streeting, is no longer enough. After a year in power, this is Labour's prescription for how it will nurse the patient back to health. This – progress on delivering the planned transformation – is now a legitimate yardstick by which to judge Labour's stewardship of the nation's most treasured institution. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The plan is as bold and radical as Streeting insists. But its key objectives – 'three big shifts' in the NHS's modus operandi from analogue to digital, treatment to prevention and hospital to community-based care – are familiar. They have been the stuff of previous NHS plans, and multiple inquiries, for decades – much promised, but rarely delivered. For example, the planned network of new 'neighbourhood health centres', with teams of health professionals and patient-friendly long opening hours, are very similar to the 'Darzi centres' proposed by the last Labour administration, of which few actually opened. Streeting does not pretend that the job of transformation will be easy. But there is a daunting array of obstacles to overcome. Will money needed to temporarily 'double run' old and new services during the transition be found? Will staff used to working in hospitals prove willing to switch to community settings? Will the gamble on technology pay off? Will the plan's failure to include big shifts to improve public health – such as mandatory reformulation of food or minimum unit pricing of alcohol – mean that the tidal wave of often-avoidable illness continues to outrun the NHS's ability to treat it? And will the decision to shed half of NHS England's 15,300 staff during its merger with the Department of Health and Social Care mean that Streeting does not have enough progress-chasers to ensure his tablets of stone are yielding real change? But the greatest risk Streeting faces is time. Alan Milburn, health secretary under Tony Blair and now Streeting's chief adviser, admitted later that the 2000 NHS plan bought him time to rescue the service from the derelict state his predecessors had left it in. But the often snail-like pace of previous NHS reforms suggests that, despite Labour having four more years in power, even that may not be enough for this plan to produce real, tangible benefits – changes to waiting times and the convenience of interacting with the NHS that patients notice. Voters keen to see 'our NHS' restored and improved may need to temper their expectations of rapid change, and ministers may have to do so too.
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Warning for parents about colors your children should NEVER wear at the beach – certain swimsuits make them ‘invisible'
An organization is sharing a petition to ban these three popular colors SAFETY FIRST Warning for parents about colors your children should NEVER wear at the beach – certain swimsuits make them 'invisible' EXPERTS are warning parents to think twice before buying their child's bathing suits, as certain colors are more dangerous than others. Research found that parents are unknowingly putting their children in danger by buying colors that may be invisible underwater. 2 Parents are being warned not to dress their children in certain colors (stock photo) Credit: Getty 2 Parents should avoid blue, gray and white colors Credit: On the Beach Parents should avoid dressing their children in blue, white, or gray swimsuits, according to On the Beach. Those three colors were found to be nearly invisible underwater, even if you're child is just a few feet below the surface. If the child were to be in any sort of danger, it may be harder for a lifeguard to spot them. 'I've swam my entire life and I've only recently become aware that there are certain colours that can't be seen underwater,' Olympic gold medalist Rebecca Adlington told On the Beach. 'As a parent, I should have been aware of this sooner.' On the Beach is launching a petition to ban clothing companies from producing children's swimwear in those colors. 'Alongside On the Beach, I'm urging the government to review the legislation around selling blue, white and grey swimwear to children,' Adlington said. 'They must make sure retailers are being safe and looking after our children by not selling unseeable swimwear that could put them in danger.' According to the organization, about 66% of children still wear plain blue, white or grey swim apparel. The UK-based Royal Life Saving Society found that there was an 85% increase in the number of child drownings in England between 2019 and 2022. Parents warned 3 common summer foods are dangerous to toddlers - and eating a specific fruit can cause nasty sunburn "It is essential that water safety education and experience for children should be taken forward regionally and nationally,' the RLSS director, Lee Heard, said in the report. "There is a requirement to nationally revise and reform the current approach to swimming and water safety education.' Colors such as pink, yellow, red, black, purple, and green are all safe to wear while underwater. 'It is vital that the Government takes action now so that children can be seen at all times in the water,' On the Beach's petition reads. Colors to wear and avoid ❌ Blue ❌ White ❌ Grey ✅Pink ✅Yellow ✅Red ✅Black ✅Purple ✅Green ✅Fluorescent colours [Source: On the Beach] 'Lives are at stake. 'Please help us end putting children's lives in unnecessary danger and sign this petition for change.' Supporters of the petition backed the organization's mission, mentioning their own anecdotes. 'As a lifeguard myself, when families come swimming in these particular colours, it becomes a lot harder to make sure all children are safe,' one supporter named Megan wrote. 'It's a small request to ask retailers not to sell swimwear to boys and girls in those particular colors if it's going to save children's lives,' another commenter wrote. The petition has 3,903 verified signatures so far.
