Explore the vast range of titles available.

Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. 71.7% ( =3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% ( =849) were very unsure, and 11.7% ( =598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' ( =0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' ( =-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

ObjectivesTo report frontline healthcare workers’ (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs’ fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignA rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145 000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25).ParticipantsInterview participants were HCWs purposively sampled from critical care, emergency and respiratory departments as well as redeployed HCWs from primary, secondary and tertiary care centres across the UK.ResultsA major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to reuse and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about differential access to adequate PPE, particularly for women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use.ConclusionThis study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs.

When vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears. In total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January-5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey-injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears. In total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-2.40, < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.14, < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, = 0.22, < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, = 0.23, = <0.001 and injection fears, = 0.25, < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups. Across the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has set unprecedented demand on the healthcare workforce around the world. The UK has been one of the most affected countries in Europe. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) in relation to COVID-19 and care delivery models implemented to deal with the pandemic in the UK.MethodsThe study was designed as a rapid appraisal combining: (1) a review of UK healthcare policies (n=35 policies), (2) mass media and social media analysis of front-line staff experiences and perceptions (n=101 newspaper articles, n=1 46 000 posts) and (3) in-depth (telephone) interviews with front-line staff (n=30 interviews). The findings from all streams were analysed using framework analysis.ResultsLimited personal protective equipment (PPE) and lack of routine testing created anxiety and distress and had a tangible impact on the workforce. When PPE was available, incorrect size and overheating complicated routine work. Lack of training for redeployed staff and the failure to consider the skills of redeployed staff for new areas were identified as problems. Positive aspects of daily work reported by HCWs included solidarity between colleagues, the establishment of well-being support structures and feeling valued by society.ConclusionOur study highlighted the importance of taking into consideration the experiences and concerns of front-line staff during a pandemic. Staff working in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic advocated clear and consistent guidelines, streamlined testing of HCWs, administration of PPE and acknowledgement of the effects of PPE on routine practice.

We must learn from the successes and failures of the covid-19 vaccination programme if we are to prepare for the next pandemic, writes Samantha Vanderslott

We explore the implications of online social endorsement for the Covid-19 vaccination program in the United Kingdom. Vaccine hesitancy is a long-standing problem, but it has assumed great urgency due to the pandemic. By early 2021, the United Kingdom had the world’s highest Covid-19 mortality per million of population. Our survey of a nationally representative sample of UK adults (N = 5,114) measured socio-demographics, social and political attitudes, media diet for getting news about Covid-19, and intention to use social media and personal messaging apps to encourage or discourage vaccination against Covid-19. Cluster analysis identified six distinct media diet groups: news avoiders, mainstream/official news samplers, super seekers, omnivores, the social media dependent, and the TV dependent. We assessed whether these media diets, together with key attitudes, including Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy, conspiracy mentality, and the news-finds-me attitude (meaning giving less priority to active monitoring of news and relying more on one’s online networks of friends for information), predict the intention to encourage or discourage vaccination. Overall, super-seeker and omnivorous media diets are more likely than other media diets to be associated with the online encouragement of vaccination. Combinations of (a) news avoidance and high levels of the news-finds-me attitude and (b) social media dependence and high levels of conspiracy mentality are most likely to be associated with online discouragement of vaccination. In the direct statistical model, a TV-dependent media diet is more likely to be associated with online discouragement of vaccination, but the moderation model shows that a TV-dependent diet most strongly attenuates the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and discouraging vaccination. Our findings support public health communication based on four main methods. First, direct contact, through the post, workplace, or community structures, and through phone counseling via local health services, could reach the news avoiders. Second, TV public information advertisements should point to authoritative information sources, such as National Health Service (NHS) and other public health websites, which should then feature clear and simple ways for people to share material among their online social networks. Third, informative social media campaigns will provide super seekers with good resources to share, while also encouraging the social media dependent to browse away from social media platforms and visit reliable and authoritative online sources. Fourth, social media companies should expand and intensify their removal of vaccine disinformation and anti-vax accounts, and such efforts should be monitored by well-resourced, independent organizations.

Background Community engagement (CE) is a well-established practical and scholarly field, recognised as core to the science and ethics of health research, for which researchers and practitioners have increasingly asked questions about desired standards and evaluation. In infectious disease outbreak contexts, questions may be more complex. However, it is unclear what body of knowledge has been developed for CE specifically as it applies to emerging infectious diseases. This scoping review seeks to describe (1) How CE has been conceptualised and understood; and (2) What conclusions have research teams reached on the effectiveness of CE in these settings, including challenges and facilitators. Methods We used a scoping review framework by Arksey and O’Malley (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19–32, 2005) to structure our review. We conducted a brainstorming session and initial trial search to inform the protocol, search terms, and strategy. Three researchers discussed, developed and applied agreed screening tools and selection criteria to the final search results. Five researchers used the screening tools to screen abstracts and full text for inclusion by consensus. Additional publications were sought from references of retrieved publications and an expert call for literature. We analysed and reported emerging themes qualitatively. Results We included 59 papers from a total of 722 articles derived from our trial and final literature searches, as well as a process of “citation chasing” and an expert call for grey literature. The core material related exclusively to health research trials during the 2014–2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak. We synthesized reports on components of effectiveness of CE to identify and propose three themes as essential elements of effective CE. Conclusions While there is a large volume of literature documenting CE activities in infectious disease research settings generally, there are few accounts of effectiveness dimensions of CE. Our review proposes three themes to facilitate the effectiveness of CE initiatives as essential elements of CE activities in infectious diseases studies: (1) Communication towards building collaborative relationships; (2) Producing contextual knowledge; and (3) Learning lessons over time. As there were relatively few in-depth accounts of CE from our literature review, documentation and accounts of CE used in health research should be prioritised.

Background: Validated instruments can be used to quantify vaccine hesitancy, but few provide transportable operational cut-offs or temporal stability metrics. We evaluated the Oxford Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (OVHS) to quantify discrimination for the self-reported historical COVID-19 vaccine refusal, derive and validate a single operational cut-off across populations, and assess the test–retest reliability. Methods: Five datasets (including one from a repeat administration) comprising 2451 assessments from 1989 demographically representative UK and US respondents were analyzed without pooling. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with 10,000 bootstrap replications (bias-corrected and accelerated and percentile Cis) were used to quantify discrimination. A Youden’s J near-optimal plateau algorithm constrained by a cross-dataset specificity floor (≥0.75) was used to select a transportable cut-off. A prevalence-agnostic aggregate Index of Union (Iuagg) provided secondary confirmation of this cut-off. Cut-off behaviour was visualized with a multi-sample two-graph ROC plot. The six-week test–retest reliability on a UK sample used a two-way mixed-effects, absolute-agreement ICC(A,1). Results: AUCs ranged 0.760–0.971 across datasets (derivation AUC: 0.960). The Youden plateau spanned scores 34–38; applying the specificity floor yielded an operational cut-off OVHS ≥ 35, which was confirmed by the Iuagg. At ≥35, sensitivity/specificity were 0.73–0.95/0.63–0.87 across samples; negative predictive value exceeded 0.90 in all cohorts. The test–retest reliability was good to excellent, with the OVHS total ICC(A,1) = 0.884 (95% CI 0.863–0.903); subscales ranged from 0.649 to 0.901 and the average-measure ICC(A,2) = 0.939. Conclusions: The OVHS demonstrates good-to-excellent discrimination for historical COVID-19 vaccine refusal and strong temporal stability. We found a single, transparent, and transportable operational cut-off (≥35). Our cut-off derivation framework is scale- and endpoint-agnostic and may generalize to other hesitancy instruments and decision cut-offs more broadly.

This review critically assesses the body of research about Measles-Mumps-and-Rubella (MMR) vaccine attitudes and uptake in the United Kingdom (UK) over the past 10 years. We searched PubMed and Scopus, with terms aimed at capturing relevant literature on attitudes about, and uptake of, the MMR vaccine. Two researchers screened for abstract eligibility and after de-duplication 934 studies were selected. After screening, 40 references were included for full-text review and thematic synthesis by three researchers. We were interested in the methodologies employed and grouped findings by whether studies concerned: (1) Uptake and Demographics; (2) Beliefs and Attitudes; (3) Healthcare Worker Focus; (4) Experimental and Psychometric Intervention; and (5) Mixed Methods. We identified group and individual level determinants for attitudes, operating directly and indirectly, which influence vaccine uptake. We found that access issues, often ignored within the public “anti-vax” debate, remain highly pertinent. Finally, a consistent theme was the effect of misinformation or lack of knowledge and trust in healthcare, often stemming from the Wakefield controversy. Future immunisation campaigns for children, including for COVID-19, should consider both access and attitudinal aspects of vaccination, and incorporate a range of methodologies to assess progress, taking into account socio-economic variables and the needs of disadvantaged groups.

The market for digital health monitoring is expanding rapidly, with technologies that track health information and provide access to medical data promising benefits for users, particularly in areas with limited healthcare resources. To understand user attitudes toward these technologies, we conducted a systematic review of literature with primary data about patient and public perspectives. We synthesized 562 studies (2000–2023) from PubMed, Embase, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and Scopus, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research. We revealed a significant geographic bias, with most research concentrated in few countries, and identified access gaps in both Global South and Global North. While users generally showed positive attitudes toward health monitoring technologies, they expressed various concerns. We provide suggestions for future research to enhance the socially responsible integration of technology in healthcare. One important limitation of our approach is using English-language search terms. This potentially excluded relevant studies from underrepresented countries.