Explore the vast range of titles available.

Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to address vaccination inequities and meet the goals of WHO's new Immunisation Agenda 2030. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020219214) exploring barriers and facilitators of vaccine uptake (categorised using the 5As taxonomy: access, awareness, affordability, acceptance, activation) and sociodemographic determinants of undervaccination among migrants in the EU and European Economic Area, the UK, and Switzerland. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2021 for primary research, with no restrictions on language. 5259 data sources were screened, with 67 studies included from 16 countries, representing 366 529 migrants. We identified multiple access barriers—including language, literacy, and communication barriers, practical and legal barriers to accessing and delivering vaccination services, and service barriers such as lack of specific guidelines and knowledge of health-care professionals—for key vaccines including measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, human papillomavirus, influenza, polio, and COVID-19 vaccines. Acceptance barriers were mostly reported in eastern European and Muslim migrants for human papillomavirus, measles, and influenza vaccines. We identified 23 significant determinants of undervaccination in migrants (p<0·05), including African origin, recent migration, and being a refugee or asylum seeker. We did not identify a strong overall association with gender or age. Tailored vaccination messaging, community outreach, and behavioural nudges facilitated uptake. Migrants' barriers to accessing health care are already well documented, and this Review confirms their role in limiting vaccine uptake. These findings hold immediate relevance to strengthening vaccination programmes in high-income countries, including for COVID-19, and suggest that tailored, culturally sensitive, and evidence-informed strategies, unambiguous public health messaging, and health system strengthening are needed to address access and acceptance barriers to vaccination in migrants and create opportunities and pathways for offering catch-up vaccinations to migrants.

To explore COVID-19 vaccination uptake, facilitators and barriers in ethnically-diverse pregnant women. An anonymous quality improvement questionnaire survey exploring COVID-19 vaccination uptake, causes of vaccine hesitancy and trusted sources of information among pregnant women in two acute district general hospitals in England (Berkshire and Surrey) between 1.9.21 and 28.2.22. 441 pregnant women attending routine antenatal clinic appointments. Consented pregnant women completed the survey either electronically using a QR code or on paper. Descriptive data were summarised and free text responses were thematically analysed. 441 pregnant women, mean age 32 years (range 17-44), completed the survey. Twenty-six percent were from ethnic minority groups, and 31% had a co-morbid health condition. Most respondents (66.2%) had been vaccinated against COVID-19 with at least one dose (White British 71.9%, Asian 67.9%, White-other 63.6%, Black 33%). The most common reasons for not being vaccinated were concerns about effects on the unborn baby and future pregnancies, anxiety about possible adverse impact on the mother, not enough known about the vaccine, and lack of trust in vaccines. Comments included: \"I'd rather not risk injecting the unknown into my body\", and \"I don't trust it.\" Although 23% used social media for information on COVID-19 vaccination, the most trusted sources were the patient's GP and midwife (43%) and official health-related websites such as NHS (39%). A third of these pregnant women had not been vaccinated against COVID-19. Trusted health professionals like midwives and GPs could have a crucial role in increasing vaccination uptake.

Within the UK, dietary fibre intakes are well below recommended intakes and associated with increased risk of obesity. This study aimed to explore the views of parents and children on barriers and facilitators to increasing fibre intakes and improving diets, alongside investigating the appropriateness of intervention components to overcome modifiable barriers. Qualitative study including semi-structured interviews and focus groups informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. Year 5 children (aged 9-10-years) and parents, recruited through London primary schools. A total of twenty-four participants (eleven parents and thirteen children) took part. Five key themes were identified as barriers and facilitators, namely lack of (and improving) knowledge, social factors (including parent-child conflicts, limited time for food preparation, influence of peer and family members), current eating habits, influence of the school, community and home environment in shaping eating behaviours, and the importance of choice and variety in finding foods that are healthy and tasty. Parents strongly supported school-based dietary interventions to enable consistent messaging at home and school and help support dietary behaviour change. Practical sessions (such as workshops to strengthen knowledge, taste tests and food swap ideas) were supported by parents and children. By using a theory-driven approach to explore the barriers and facilitators to increasing fibre intake, this research identified important themes and modifiable barriers to behaviour change and identifies acceptable intervention components to overcome barriers and bring about sustained dietary behaviour change in primary school children.

Bathing babies less frequently and intensively in the first six months of life may prevent eczema, but this has not yet been definitively tested in a randomised controlled trial. Such a trial would require evidence-based support to help parents engage with a minimal bathing routine. The present study reports the development of this support. We adopted a four-stage design process: (i) Pregnant women and their families (n = 31) were interviewed to ascertain key barriers and facilitators towards following the minimal bathing intervention. (ii) These barriers and facilitators were mapped to behaviour change techniques, focussing on the intervention types of education, persuasion and environmental restructuring, alongside appropriate modes of delivery, and prototype intervention materials were developed. (iii) We iteratively refined these materials in a workshop with multidisciplinary experts and Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) representatives (n = 13) and an (iv) intervention walkthrough with families (n = 5). The design process was informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel, Theoretical framework of acceptability and the Template for intervention description and replication. Social influences and motivational factors are likely to influence both uptake and adherence to the intervention. Anticipated emotional reward from participating in research for the benefit of others was indicated to be a strong facilitator for intervention uptake. Alternatives to bathing, having fun with the baby and the night-time routine, alongside family support, were notable facilitators suggested to aid adherence to the intervention. Barriers included hygiene concerns and anticipated negative social appraisal. Barriers and facilitators were mapped to thirty-six behaviour change techniques, focussing on the intervention types of education, persuasion and environmental restructuring, all of which were embedded into the package of support. The prototype intervention materials received positive feedback from the expert workshop and study walkthrough with families. The final package of support comprises printed and digital prompts and cues, a study booklet, video, and digital tool for self-monitoring. The intervention design process incorporated the 'real world' views and experiences of families, experts and PPIE representatives, alongside criteria for designing behavioural interventions. The effectiveness of the package of support will be tested in a feasibility trial and embedded process evaluation.

Background Peer workers are increasingly employed in mental health services to use their own experiences of mental distress in supporting others with similar experiences. While evidence is emerging of the benefits of peer support for people using services, the impact on peer workers is less clear. There is a lack of research that takes a longitudinal approach to exploring impact on both employment outcomes for peer workers, and their experiences of working in the peer worker role. Methods In a longitudinal mixed methods study, 32 peer workers providing peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care - as part of a randomised controlled trial - undertook in-depth qualitative interviews conducted by service user researchers, and completed measures of wellbeing, burnout, job satisfaction and multi-disciplinary team working after completing training, and four and 12 months into the role. Questionnaire data were summarised and compared to outcomes for relevant population norms, and changes in outcomes were analysed using paired t-tests. Thematic analysis and interpretive workshops involving service user researchers were used to analysis interview transcripts. A critical interpretive synthesis approach was used to synthesise analyses of both datasets. Results For the duration of the study, all questionnaire outcomes were comparable with population norms for health professionals or for the general population. There were small-to-medium decreases in wellbeing and aspects of job satisfaction, and increase in burnout after 4 months, but these changes were largely not maintained at 12 months. Peer workers felt valued, empowered and connected in the role, but could find it challenging to adjust to the demands of the job after initial optimism. Supervision and being part of a standalone peer worker team was supportive, although communication with clinical teams could be improved. Conclusions Peer workers seem no more likely to experience negative impacts of working than other healthcare professionals but should be well supported as they settle into post, provided with in-work training and support around job insecurity. Research is needed to optimise working arrangements for peer workers alongside clinical teams.

Background Migrants to the UK face disproportionate risk of infections, non-communicable diseases, and under-immunisation compounded by healthcare access barriers. Current UK migrant screening strategies are unstandardised with poor implementation and low uptake. Health Catch-UP! is a collaboratively produced digital clinical decision support system that applies current guidelines (UKHSA and NICE) to provide primary care professionals with individualised multi-disease screening (7 infectious diseases/blood-borne viruses, 3 chronic parasitic infections, 3 non-communicable disease or risk factors) and catch-up vaccination prompts for migrant patients. Methods We carried out a mixed-methods process evaluation of Health Catch-UP! in two urban primary healthcare practices to integrate Health Catch-UP! into the electronic health record system of primary care, using the Medical Research Council framework for complex intervention evaluation. We collected quantitative data (demographics, patients screened, disease detection and catch-up vaccination rates) and qualitative participant interviews to explore acceptability and feasibility. Results Ninety-nine migrants were assessed by Health Catch-UP! across two sites (S1, S2). 96.0% ( n  = 97) had complete demographics coding with Asia 31.3% ( n  = 31) and Africa 25.2% ( n  = 25), the most common continents of birth (S1 n  = 92 [48.9% female ( n  = 44); mean age 60.6 years (SD 14.26)]; and S2 n  = 7 [85.7% male ( n  = 6); mean age 39.4 years (SD16.97)]. 61.6% ( n  = 61) of participants were eligible for screening for at least one condition and uptake of screening was high 86.9% ( n  = 53). Twelve new conditions were identified (12.1% of study population) including hepatitis C ( n  = 1), hypercholesteraemia ( n  = 6), pre-diabetes ( n  = 4), and diabetes ( n  = 1). Health Catch-UP! identified that 100% ( n  = 99) of patients had no immunisations recorded; however, subsequent catch-up vaccination uptake was poor (2.0%, n  = 1). Qualitative data supported acceptability and feasibility of Health Catch-UP! from staff and patient perspectives, and recommended Health Catch-UP! integration into routine care (e.g. NHS health checks) with an implementation package including staff and patient support materials, standardised care pathways (screening and catch-up vaccination, laboratory, and management), and financial incentivisation. Conclusions Clinical Decision Support Systems like Health Catch-UP! can improve disease detection and implementation of screening guidance for migrant patients but require robust testing, resourcing, and an effective implementation package to support both patients and staff.

Background Migrants in the UK and Europe face vulnerability to vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) due to missed childhood vaccines and doses and marginalisation from health systems. Ensuring migrants receive catch-up vaccinations, including MMR, Td/IPV, MenACWY, and HPV, is essential to align them with UK and European vaccination schedules and ultimately reduce morbidity and mortality. However, recent evidence highlights poor awareness and implementation of catch-up vaccination guidelines by UK primary care staff, requiring novel approaches to strengthen the primary care pathway. Methods The ‘Vacc on Track’ study (May 2021–September 2022) aimed to measure under-vaccination rates among migrants in UK primary care and establish new referral pathways for catch-up vaccination. Participants included migrants aged 16 or older, born outside of Western Europe, North America, Australia, or New Zealand, in two London boroughs. Quantitative data on vaccination history, referral, uptake, and sociodemographic factors were collected, with practice nurses prompted to deliver catch-up vaccinations following UK guidelines. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with staff and migrants explored views on delivering catch-up vaccination, including barriers, facilitators, and opportunities. Data were analysed using STATA12 and NVivo 12. Results Results from 57 migrants presenting to study sites from 18 countries (mean age 41 [SD 7.2] years; 62% female; mean 11.3 [SD 9.1] years in UK) over a minimum of 6 months of follow-up revealed significant catch-up vaccination needs, particularly for MMR (49 [86%] required catch-up vaccination) and Td/IPV (50 [88%]). Fifty-three (93%) participants were referred for any catch-up vaccination, but completion of courses was low (6 [12%] for Td/IPV and 33 [64%] for MMR), suggesting individual and systemic barriers. Qualitative in-depth interviews ( n  = 39) with adult migrants highlighted the lack of systems currently in place in the UK to offer catch-up vaccination to migrants on arrival and the need for health-care provider skills and knowledge of catch-up vaccination to be improved. Focus group discussions and interviews with practice staff ( n  = 32) identified limited appointment/follow-up time, staff knowledge gaps, inadequate engagement routes, and low incentivisation as challenges that will need to be addressed. However, they underscored the potential of staff champions, trust-building mechanisms, and community-based approaches to strengthen catch-up vaccination uptake among migrants. Conclusions Given the significant catch-up vaccination needs of migrants in our sample, and the current barriers to driving uptake identified, our findings suggest it will be important to explore this public health issue further, potentially through a larger study or trial. Strengthening existing pathways, staff capacity and knowledge in primary care, alongside implementing new strategies centred on cultural competence and building trust with migrant communities will be important focus areas.

Few studies have examined therapist effects and therapeutic alliance (TA) in treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Therapist effects are the differences in outcomes achieved by different therapists. TA is the quality of the bond and level of agreement regarding the goals and tasks of therapy. Prior research suffers the methodological problem that the allocation of therapist was not randomized, meaning therapist effects may be confounded with selection effects. We used data from a randomized controlled treatment trial of 296 people with CFS. The trial compared pragmatic rehabilitation (PR), a nurse led, home based self-help treatment, a counselling-based treatment called supportive listening (SL), with general practitioner treatment as usual. Therapist allocation was randomized. Primary outcome measures, fatigue and physical functioning were assessed blind to treatment allocation. TA was measured in the PR and SL arms. Regression models allowing for interactions were used to examine relationships between (i) therapist and therapeutic alliance, and (ii) therapist and average treatment effect (the difference in mean outcomes between different treatment conditions). We found no therapist effects. We found no relationship between TA and the average treatment effect of a therapist. One therapist formed stronger alliances when delivering PR compared to when delivering SL (effect size 0.76, SE 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41). In these therapies for CFS, TA does not influence symptomatic outcome. The lack of significant therapist effects on outcome may result from the trial's rigorous quality control, or random therapist allocation, eliminating selection effects. Further research is needed. ISRCTN74156610.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144623.].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144623.].