Search

Introduction: Disparities in the uptake of routine and COVID‐19 vaccinations have been observed in migrant populations, and attributed to issues of mistrust, access and low vaccine confidence. Participatory research approaches and behaviour change theory hold the potential for developing tailored vaccination interventions that address these complex barriers in partnership with communities and should be explored further. Methods: This study used a theory‐informed, community‐based participatory research approach to co‐design a culturally tailored behaviour change intervention aimed at increasing COVID‐19 vaccine uptake among Congolese migrants in London, United Kingdom (2021–2022). It was designed and led by a community‐academic partnership in response to unmet needs in the Congolese community as the COVID‐19 pandemic started. Barriers and facilitators to COVID‐19 vaccination, information and communication preferences, and intervention suggestions were explored through qualitative in‐depth interviews with Congolese migrants, thematically analysed, and mapped to the theoretical domains framework (TDF) and the capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour model to identify target behaviours and strategies to include in interventions. Interventions were co‐designed and tailored in workshops involving Congolese migrants. Results: Thirty‐two Congolese adult migrants (24 (75%) women, mean 14.3 (SD: 7.5) years in the United Kingdom, mean age 52.6 (SD: 11.0) years) took part in in‐depth interviews and 16 (same sample) took part in co‐design workshops. Fourteen barriers and 10 facilitators to COVID‐19 vaccination were identified; most barrier data related to four TDF domains (beliefs about consequences; emotion; social influences and environmental context and resources), and the behavioural diagnosis concluded interventions should target improving psychological capability, reflective and automatic motivations and social opportunities. Strategies included culturally tailored behaviour change techniques based on education, persuasion, modelling, enablement and environmental restructuring, which resulted in a co‐designed intervention comprising community‐led workshops, plays and posters. Findings and interventions were disseminated through a community celebration event. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates how behavioural theory can be applied to co‐designing tailored interventions with underserved migrant communities through a participatory research paradigm to address a range of health issues and inequalities. Future research should build on this empowering approach, with the goal of developing more sensitive vaccination services and interventions which respond to migrant communities' unique cultural needs and realities. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and public involvement (PPI) were embedded in the participatory study design and approach, with community members co‐producing all stages of the study and co‐authoring this paper. An independent PPI board (St George's Migrant Health Research Group Patient and Public Involvement Advisory Board) comprising five adult migrants with lived experience of accessing healthcare in the United Kingdom were also consulted at significant points over the course of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A range of nonpharmaceutical public health interventions has been introduced in many countries following the rapid spread of Covid‐19 since 2020, including recommendations or mandates for the use of face masks or coverings in the community. While the effectiveness of face masks in reducing Covid‐19 transmission has been extensively discussed, scant attention has been paid to the lived experience of those wearing face masks. Method: Drawing on 40 narrative interviews with a purposive sample of people in the United Kingdom, with a particular focus on marginalised and minoritized groups, our paper explores experiences of face mask use during the pandemic. Results: We find that face masks have a range of societal, health and safety impacts, and prompted positive and negative emotional responses for users. We map our findings onto Lorenc and Oliver's framework for intervention risks. We suggest that qualitative data offer particular insights into the experiences of public health interventions, allowing the potential downsides and risks of interventions to be more fully considered and informing public health policies that might avoid inadvertent harm, particularly towards marginalised groups. Patient or Public Contribution: The study primarily involved members of the public in the conduct of the research, namely through participation in interviews (email and telephone). The conception for the study involved extensive discussions on social media with a range of people, and we received input and ideas from presentations we delivered on the preliminary analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many people experience persistent symptoms for more than 12 weeks following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, which is known as post‐COVID‐19 condition (PCS) or Long COVID (LC). PCS can impair people's quality of life and daily functioning. However, there is a lack of in‐depth research exploring the PCS patient journey, as well as gendered aspects of patients' experiences. Methods: Nineteen semi‐structured qualitative interviews were conducted with people living with PCS in the United Kingdom (13 women, 6 men). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Five main themes were identified: 'Symptom dismissal', 'Lack of information and support', 'Life before and after Long COVID', 'Psychological impact' and 'Acceptance'. A shift overtime to self‐management of symptoms was evident. These themes represent different stages of patients' PCS journey. Narratives indicated that women highlighted dismissal by healthcare professionals (HCPs), which was not as prominent in men's narratives. In addition, women went into more detail about the psychological impact of PCS compared to men. Conclusion: Women with PCS reported symptom dismissal by HCPs, which may have delayed their diagnosis and negatively affected their well‐being. We were not able to explore the experiences of people from non‐conforming gender groups. Raising awareness of these issues among HCPs, particularly general practitioners, could improve patient care in PCS. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and public involvement consisted of people who took part in the interviews and commented on the themes' interpretation and study conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to uncover perspectives on the COVID‐19 pandemic and the responses implemented by the UK and Scottish Governments to help control the spread of infection. Such understanding could help to inform future responses to pandemics at individual, community and national levels. Method: Q methodology was used to elicit perspectives from people in England and Scotland with different experiences of the pandemic including public health officials, key workers, those on furlough, those who were unvaccinated or vaccinated to different levels, those who were 'shielding' because they were at higher risk and people with different scientific expertise. Participants rank‐ordered phrases about different aspects of COVID‐19 according to their viewpoint. Factor analysis was then conducted in conjunction with interview material from the same respondents. Results: A four‐factor solution was statistically supported and was interpretable alongside the qualitative accounts of participants loading on these factors. These four perspectives are titled Dangerous and Unaccountable Leadership, Fear and Anger at Policy and Public responses, Governing Through a Crisis and Injustices Exposed. Conclusion: The four perspectives demonstrate plurality and nuance in views on COVID‐19 and the associated policies and restrictions, going beyond a binary narrative that has been apparent in popular and social media. The four perspectives include some areas of common ground, as well as disagreement. We argue that understanding the detail of different perspectives might be used to build cohesion around policy initiatives in future. Patient or Public Contribution: The development of the statement set, which is rank‐ordered by participants in a Q study, and factor interpretations were informed by views of the general public. The statement set was initially developed using existing publicly available material based on members of the general public experiencing the pandemic first hand. It was then piloted with members of the public experiencing different challenges as a result of COVID‐19 and the subsequent lockdown and updated based on feedback. Finally, interpretations of the identified factors were presented publicly and edited according to their feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Care home staff working during the COVID‐19 pandemic experienced higher levels of stress and increased workloads. People from diverse ethnic backgrounds were disproportionately affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic. This study explored the identity experiences of care home staff from diverse ethnic backgrounds in the context of working during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: Fourteen semistructured interviews were conducted between May 2021 and April 2022 with ethnic minority care home staff in England, who worked during the pandemic. Participants were recruited using convenience and theoretical sampling. Interviews were conducted via telephone or online platforms. A social constructivist grounded theory methodology was utilised in analysing the data. Findings: Participants described five key processes which facilitated or hindered the impact that their experiences had on their identity: dealing with uncertainty and transitioning into a COVID‐19 world; difficult emotions; experiences of discrimination and racism; the response from the care home and societal systems; and the personal vs collective responsibility. When participants' physical and psychological needs went unmet by support structures within the care home and/or society, they experienced a sense of injustice, lack of control and being unvalued or discriminated against by others. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of recognising the unique needs of staff from diverse ethnic backgrounds working in care homes and adapting working practices to improve impact on identity, job satisfaction and staff retention. Patient and Public Involvement: One care home worker was involved in developing the topic guide and helping to interpret the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic brought rapid and major changes to research, and those wishing to carry out Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities faced challenges, such as restrictions on movement and contact, illness, bereavement and risks to potential participants. Some researchers moved PPI to online settings during this time but remote consultations raise, as well as address, a number of challenges. It is important to learn from PPI undertaken in this period as face‐to‐face consultation may no longer be the dominant method for PPI. Methods: UK stay‐at‐home measures announced in March 2020 necessitated immediate revisions to the intended face‐to‐face methods of PPI consultation for the ESORT Study, which evaluated emergency surgery for patients with common acute conditions. PPI plans and methods were modified to all components being online. We describe and reflect on: initial plans and adaptation; recruitment; training and preparation; implementation, contextualisation and interpretation. Through first‐hand accounts we show how the PPI processes were developed, experienced and viewed by different partners in the process. Discussion and Conclusions: While concerns have been expressed about the possible limiting effects of forgoing face‐to‐face contact with PPI partners, we found important benefits from the altered dynamic of the online PPI environment. There were increased opportunities for participation which might encourage the involvement of a broader demographic, and unexpected benefits in that the online platform seemed to have a 'democratising' effect on the meetings, to the benefit of the PPI processes and outcomes. Other studies may however find that their particular research context raises particular challenges for the use of online methods, especially in relation to representation and inclusion, as new barriers to participation may be raised. It is important that methodological challenges are addressed, and researchers provide detailed examples of novel methods for discussion and empirical study. Patient and Public Contribution: We report a process which involved people with lived experience of emergency conditions and members of the public. A patient member was involved in the design and implementation, and two patients with lived experience contributed to the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID‐19 vaccines have been the central pillar of the public health response to the pandemic, intended to enable us to 'live with Covid'. It is important to understand change and complexity of COVID‐19 vaccines attitudes and decisions to maximize uptake through an empathetic lens. Objective: To explore the factors that influenced people's COVID‐19 vaccines decisions and how their complex attitudes towards the vaccines had changed in an eventful year. Design and Participants: This is a follow‐up study that took place in Bradford, UK between October 2021 and January 2022, 1 year after the original study. In‐depth phone interviews were conducted with 12 (of the 20 originally interviewed) people from different ethnic groups and areas of Bradford. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Eleven of the 12 participants interviewed had received both doses of the COVID‐19 vaccine and most intended to have a booster dose. Participants described a variety of reasons why they had decided to have the vaccines, including the following: feeling at increased risk at work; protecting family and others in their communities; unrestricted travel and being influenced by the vaccine decisions of family, friends and colleagues. All participants discussed ongoing interaction with COVID‐19 misinformation and for some, this meant they were uneasy about their decision to have the vaccine. They described feeling overloaded by and disengaged from COVID‐19 information, which they often found contradictory and some felt mistrustful of the UK Government's motives and decisions during the pandemic. Conclusions: The majority of participants had managed to navigate an overwhelming amount of circulating COVID‐19 misinformation and chosen to have two or more COVID‐19 vaccines, even if they had been previously said they were unsure. However, these decisions were complicated, demonstrating the continuum of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. This follow‐up study underlines that vaccine attitudes are changeable and contextual. Patient or Public Contribution: The original study was developed through a rapid community and stakeholder engagement process in 2020. Discussion with the Bradford Council Public Health team and the public through the Bradford COVID‐19 Community Insights Group was undertaken in 2021 to identify important priorities for this follow‐up study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: COVID‐19 has disproportionately affected people living with dementia and their carers. Its effects on health and social care systems necessitated a rapid‐response approach to care planning and decision‐making in this population, with reflexivity and responsiveness to changing individual and system needs at its core. Considering this, a decision‐aid to help families of persons with dementia was developed. Objectives: To coproduce with people living with dementia, and the people who care for them, a decision‐aid for family carers of people living with dementia, to support decisions during the COVID‐19 pandemic and beyond. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were undertaken in 2020 with: (1) staff from two English national end‐of‐life and supportive care organizations; and (2) people living with dementia and family carers. Simultaneously, a rapid review of current evidence on making decisions with older people at the end of life was undertaken. Evidence from these inputs was combined to shape the decision‐aid through a series of workshops with key stakeholders, including our patient and public involvement group, which consisted of a person living with dementia and family carers; a group of clinical and academic experts and a group of policy and charity leads. Results: The rapid review of existing evidence highlighted the need to consider both process and outcome elements of decision‐making and their effects on people living with dementia and their families. The qualitative interviews discussed a wide range of topics, including trust, agency and confusion in making decisions in the context of COVID‐19. The decision‐aid primarily focussed on care moves, legal matters, carer wellbeing and help‐seeking. Conclusions: Combining different sources and forms of evidence was a robust and systematic process that proved efficient and valuable in creating a novel decision‐aid for family carers within the context of COVID‐19. The output from this process is an evidence‐based practical decision‐aid coproduced with people living with dementia, family carers, clinical and academic experts and leading national dementia and palliative care organizations. Patient or Public Contribution: We worked with people living with dementia and family carers and other key stakeholders throughout this study, from study development and design to inclusion in stakeholder workshops and dissemination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate the experiences of patients, clinicians and managers during the accelerated implementation of virtual consultations (VCs) due to COVID‐19. To understand how patient preferences are constructed and organized. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews with patients, clinicians and managerial staff at a single specialist orthopaedic centre in the United Kingdom. The interview schedule and coding frame were based on Normalisation Process Theory. Interviews were conducted over the telephone or by video call. Abductive analysis of interview transcripts extended knowledge from previous research to identify, characterize and explain how patient preferences for VC were formed and arranged. Results: Fifty‐five participants were included (20 patients, 20 clinicians, 15 managers). Key mechanisms that contribute to the formation of patient preferences were identified. These were: (a) context for the consultation (normative expectations, relational expectations, congruence and potential); (b) the available alternatives and the implementation process (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring). Patient preferences are mediated by the clinician and organisational preferences through the influence of the consultation context, available alternatives and the implementation process. Conclusions: This study reports the cumulative analysis of five empirical studies investigating patient preferences for VC before and during the COVID‐19 pandemic as VC transitioned from an experimental clinic to a compulsory form of service delivery. This study has identified mechanisms that explain how preferences for VC come about and how these relate to organisational and clinician preferences. Since clinical pathways are shaped by interactions between patient, clinicians and organisational preferences, future service design must strike a balance between patient preferences and the preferences of clinicians and organisations. Patient and Public Contribution: The CONNECT Project Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group provided guidance on the conduct and design of the research. This took place with remote meetings between the lead researcher and the chair of the PPI group during March and April 2020. Patient information documentation and the interview schedule were developed with the PPI group to ensure that these were accessible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID‐19 vaccines can offer a route out of the pandemic, yet initial research suggests that many are unwilling to be vaccinated. A rise in the spread of misinformation is thought to have played a significant role in vaccine hesitancy. To maximize uptake, it is important to understand why misinformation has been able to take hold at this time and why it may pose a more significant problem within certain contexts. Objective: To understand people's COVID‐19 beliefs, their interactions with (mis)information during COVID‐19 and attitudes towards a COVID‐19 vaccine. Design and Participants: Bradford, UK, was chosen as the study site to provide evidence to local decision makers. In‐depth phone interviews were carried out with 20 people from different ethnic groups and areas of Bradford during Autumn 2020. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Participants discussed a wide range of COVID‐19 misinformation they had encountered, resulting in confusion, distress and mistrust. Vaccine hesitancy could be attributed to three prominent factors: safety concerns, negative stories and personal knowledge. The more confused, distressed and mistrusting participants felt about their social worlds during the pandemic, the less positive they were about a vaccine. Conclusions: COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy needs to be understood in the context of the relationship between the spread of misinformation and associated emotional reactions. Vaccine programmes should provide a focused, localized and empathetic response to counter misinformation. Patient or Public Contribution: A rapid community and stakeholder engagement process was undertaken to identify COVID‐19 priority topics important to Bradford citizens and decision makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]