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]

Objectives: The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has not been well controlled, and vaccination could be an effective way to prevent this pandemic. By accommodating attribute nonattendance (ANA) in a discrete choice experiment (DCE), this paper aimed to examine Chinese public preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for COVID‐19 vaccine attributes, especially the influence of ANA on the estimated results. Methods: A DCE was designed with four attributes: effectiveness, protection period, adverse reactions and price. A random parameter logit model with an error component (RPL‐EC) was used to analyse the heterogeneity of respondents' preferences for COVID‐19 vaccine attributes. Two equality constraint latent class (ECLC) models were used to consider the influence of ANA on the estimated results in which the ECLC‐homogeneity model considered only ANA and the ECLC‐heterogeneity model considered both ANA and preference heterogeneity. Results: Data from 1,576 samples were included in the analyses. Effectiveness had the highest relative importance, followed by adverse reactions and protection period, which were determined by the attributes and levels presented in this study. The ECLC‐heterogeneity model improved the goodness of fit of the model and obtained a lower probability of ANA. In the ECLC‐heterogeneity model, only a small number of respondents (29.09%) considered all attributes, and price was the most easily ignored attribute (64.23%). Compared with the RPL‐EC model, the ECLC‐homogeneity model obtained lower WTPs for COVID‐19 vaccine attributes, and the ECLC‐heterogeneity model obtained mixed WTP results. In the ECLC‐heterogeneity model, preference group 1 obtained higher WTPs, and preference groups 2 and 3 obtained lower WTPs. Conclusions: The RPL‐EC, ECLC‐homogeneity and ECLC‐heterogeneity models obtained inconsistent WTPs for COVID‐19 vaccine attributes. The study found that the results of the ECLC‐heterogeneity model considering both ANA and preference heterogeneity may be more plausible because ANA and low preference may be confused in the ECLC‐homogeneity model and the RPL‐EC model. The results showed that the probability of ANA was still high in the ECLC‐heterogeneity model, although it was lower than that in the ECLC‐homogeneity model. Therefore, in future research on DCE (such as the field of vaccines), ANA should be considered as an essential issue. Public Contribution: Chinese adults from 31 provinces in mainland China participated in the study. All participants completed the COVID‐19 vaccine choice questions generated through the DCE design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

Objectives: Peer‐to‐peer communication approaches have been previously described as the 'power of personal referral'. Rather than relying on official channels of information, peer‐to‐peer communication may have a role in supporting changes in understanding and possibly behaviours. However, in emergency or pandemic situations, there is currently limited understanding of whether community members feel comfortable speaking about their vaccine experiences or advocating to others. This study explored the perceptions of COVID‐19 vaccinated and unvaccinated Australian adults regarding their preferences and opinions about peer‐peer communication and other vaccine communication strategies. Study Design: Qualitative interview research. Methods: In‐depth interviews were conducted in September 2021 with 41 members of the Australian community. Thirty‐three participants self‐identified as being vaccinated against COVID‐19, while the remainder were not vaccinated at the time or did not intend on receiving a COVID vaccine. Results: Amongst those who were vaccinated, participants spoke about being willing to promote the vaccine and correct misinformation and felt empowered following their vaccination. They highlighted the importance of peer‐to‐peer communication and community messaging, expressing the need for both strategies in an immunisation promotional campaign, with a slight emphasis on the persuasive power of communication between family and friends. However, those who were unvaccinated tended to dismiss the role of community messaging, commenting on a desire not to be like one of the many who listened to the advice of others. Conclusion: During emergency situations, governments and other relevant community organisations should consider harnessing peer‐to‐peer communication amongst motivated individuals as a health communication intervention. However further work is needed to understand the support that this constituent‐involving strategy requires. Patient or Public Contribution: Participants were invited to participate through a series of online promotional pathways including emails and social media posts. Those who completed the expression of interest and met the study criteria were contacted and sent the full study participant information documentation. A time for a 30 min semi‐structured interview was set and provided with a $50 gift voucher at the conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this research is to investigate the perspective of citizens of Nepal on the management COVID‐19, the roll‐out of the vaccine, and to gain an understanding of attitudes towards the governments' handling of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Method: A qualitative methodology was used. In‐depth interviews were conducted with 18 males and 23 females aged between 20 and 86 years old from one remote and one urban district of Nepal. Interviews were conducted in November and December 2021. A thematic approach was used to analyse the data, utilising NVivo 12 data management software. Result: Three major themes were identified: (1) Peoples' perspective on the management of COVID‐19, (2) people's perception of the management of COVID‐19 vaccination and (3) management and dissemination of information. It was found that most participants had heard of COVID‐19 and its mitigation measures, however, the majority had limited understanding and knowledge about the disease. Most participants expressed their disappointment concerning poor testing, quarantine, vaccination campaigns and poor accountability from the government towards the management of COVID‐19. Misinformation and stigma were reported as the major factors contributing to the spread of COVID‐19. People's knowledge and understanding were mainly shaped by the quality of the information they received from various sources of communication and social media. This heavily influenced their response to the pandemic, the preventive measures they followed and their attitude towards vaccination. Conclusion: Our study concludes that the study participants' perception was that testing, quarantine centres and vaccination campaigns were poorly managed in both urban and rural settings in Nepal. Since people's knowledge and understanding of COVID‐19 are heavily influenced by the quality of information they receive, we suggest providing contextualised correct information through a trusted channel regarding the pandemic, its preventive measures and vaccination. This study recommends that the government proactively involve grassroots‐level volunteers like Female Community Health Volunteers to effectively prepare for future pandemics. Patient and Public Contribution: This study was based on in‐depth interviews with 41 people from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. This study would not have been possible without their participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to understand the provision and need, quality of and trust in COVID‐19 vaccines information from the perspectives of people who have had COVID‐19 infection. Method: People who have had a COVID‐19 infection were approached via their general practice and invited to participate in the Nivel Corona Cohort. They completed questionnaires at baseline (Q1), and at three months (Q2). Outcome measures were based on health information‐seeking behaviour, as used in the Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking. Antecedents (i.e., gender, age, education level, health literacy) were used from Q1, and one's beliefs and experiences (i.e., trust in the information and healthcare system, how applicable the information is), information carrier factors (i.e., information quality perceptions and via which sources), health‐information seeking actions (i.e., decision to vaccinate and information sufficiency) and vaccination status from Q2. Data were analysed using descriptive analyses, analysis of variance tests (F‐tests) and χ2 tests with the statistical software STATA. Results: Of the respondents (N = 314), 96% were vaccinated at least once, mostly after having had the virus. Most retrieved information about COVID‐19 vaccines on the website of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (79%), broader via the internet (56%), or from family and friends (35%). Almost all had trust in the information (89%) and healthcare system (94%). Most found the information applicable to their situation (67%). Moreover, most perceived the information as correct (71%) and did not perceive the information to be misleading (85%), while fewer people found the information reliable (59%) and clear (58%). Overall, the majority indicated that the information met their expectations to make a well‐informed decision to vaccinate (89%). Conclusion: Different characteristics of people who had COVID‐19 and sought information were identified, which is important to offer tailored information. People who had COVID‐19 in this study, mainly middle‐aged, vaccinated and highly educated, were generally positive about the vaccines information, but overall the reliability and clarity could be improved. This is important for a high vaccination uptake, booster programs and coming pandemics. Patient or Public Contribution: The questionnaire was reviewed by patients who had COVID‐19, one of whom is a health services researcher. [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]

Background: Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) groups within high‐income countries are at risk of being left behind by the COVID‐19 vaccination rollout. They face both access and attitudinal barriers, including low trust in government and health authorities. Objective: To explore perceptions and attitudes towards COVID‐19 vaccination, as well as facilitators, barriers and strategies to promote uptake among CALD residents of Western Australia (WA), where there were almost no COVID‐19 cases for 2 years. Design and Participants: Perth, WA's capital, was chosen as the state's study site because most of the state's CALD population lives there. Eleven semistructured in‐depth interviews and three focus groups (with 37 participants) were conducted with CALD residents between August and October 2021. Thematic analysis was conducted, informed by the 'Capability', 'Opportunity', 'Motivation', 'Behaviour' model. Results: CALD participants faced barriers including a lack of knowledge about COVID‐19 and the vaccines, low self‐rated English proficiency and education levels, misinformation, passive government communication strategies and limited access to vaccine clinics/providers. They were, however, motivated to vaccinate by the imminent opening of state and international borders, trust in government and healthcare authorities, travel intentions and the desire to protect themselves and others. Conclusions: Despite high levels of trust and significant desire for vaccines among CALD communities in Perth, current strategies were not meeting their needs and the community remains at risk from COVID‐19. Tailored intervention strategies are required to provide knowledge, address misinformation and facilitate access to ensure uptake of COVID‐19 vaccines—including for additional doses—amongst CALD communities. Governments should work with trusted CALD community members to disseminate tailored COVID‐19 vaccine information and adequately translated resources. Patient or Public Contribution: The Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Community Reference Group at Telethon Kids Institute consulted on this project in September 2020; Ishar Multicultural Women's Health Services consulted on and facilitated the focus groups. [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]

Background: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic is sweeping across the globe, there is an urgent need to develop effective vaccines as the most powerful strategy to end the pandemic. This study aimed to examine how factors related to vaccine characteristics, their social normative influence and convenience of vaccination can affect the public's preference for the uptake of the COVID‐19 vaccine in China. Methods: An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was administered to a sample of China's general population. Participants were asked to make a series of hypothetical choices and estimate their preference for different attributes of the vaccine. A mixed logit regression model was used to analyse the DCE data. Willingness to pay for each attribute was also calculated. Results: Data of 1236 participants who provided valid responses were included in the analysis. There was strong public preference for high effectiveness of the vaccine, followed by long protective duration, very few adverse events and being manufactured overseas. Price was the least important attribute affecting the public preference in selecting the COVID‐19 vaccine. Conclusions: The strong public preferences detected in this study should be considered when developing COVID‐19 vaccination programme in China. The results provide useful information for policymakers to identify the individual and social values for a good vaccination strategy. Patient or Public Contribution: The design of the experimental choices was fully based on interviews and focus group discussions participated by 26 Chinese people with diverse socio‐economic backgrounds. Without their participation, the study would not be possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]