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: Established in March 2020, the C19PRC Study monitors the psychological and socio‐economic impact of the pandemic in the UK and other countries. This paper describes the protocol for Wave 6 (August–September 2021). Methods: The survey assessed: COVID‐19 related experiences; experiences of common mental health disorders; psychological characteristics; and social and political attitudes. Adult participants from any previous wave (N = 3170) were re‐invited, and sample replenishment procedures helped manage attrition. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure the on‐going original panel (from baseline) was nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, amongst other factors. Results: 1643 adults were re‐interviewed at Wave 6 (51.8% retention rate). Non‐participation was higher younger adults, those born outside UK, and adults living in cities. Of the adults recruited at baseline, 54.3% (N = 1100) participated in Wave 6. New respondent (N = 415) entered the panel at this wave, resulting in cross‐sectional sample for Wave 6 of 2058 adults. The raking procedure re‐balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1.3% of population estimates for selected socio‐demographic characteristics. Conclusions: This paper outlines the growing strength of the publicly available C19PRC Study data for COVID‐19‐related interdisciplinary research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The COVID‐19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study was established in March 2020 to monitor the psychological and socio‐economic impact of the pandemic in the UK and other countries. This paper describes the protocol for Wave 5 (March–April 2021). Methods: The survey assessed: COVID‐19 related experiences; experiences of common mental health disorders; psychological characteristics; and social and political attitudes. Adults who participated in any previous wave (N = 4949) were re‐invited to participate. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure the longitudinal panel was nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, amongst other factors. Results: Overall, 2520 adults participated. A total of 2377 adults who participated in the previous survey wave (November–December 2020) were re‐interviewed at Wave 5 (61.5% retention rate). Attrition between these two waves was predicted by younger age, lower household income, children living in the household, and treatment for mental health difficulties. Of the adults recruited into the C19PRC study at baseline, 57.4% (N = 1162) participated in Wave 5. The raking procedure re‐balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1.5% of population estimates for selected socio‐demographic characteristics. Conclusion: This paper outlines the growing strength of the publicly available C19PRC Study data for COVID‐19‐related interdisciplinary research. [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]

The COVID‐19 health crisis has imposed extensive shocks to many global systems, particularly the UK food production chains, further challenging Eurocentric development discourses and stereotypes. Thus, this paper investigates how the pandemic has challenged the UK's development status by analysing how the pandemic has impacted the country's food industry. A literature review was conducted and used to identify, select and critically appraise publications between 2000 and 2021 discussing the challenges in the UK food system. The findings reveal that the UK's food industry is unsustainable as there are significant flaws in the system, that is food insecurity and food waste that go unaddressed. The impact of the pandemic has exacerbated the social and economic impacts of operating with such a system. Compounded with the geopolitical adjustments caused by Brexit, the UK is faced with the challenge of restructuring and developing new frameworks such as policies, regulations, schemes and partnerships to support the food industry's sustainability. Lastly, the findings reinforce that 'developed' and 'developing' nations encounter similar food challenges, which manifest differently in various landscapes and contexts. Therefore, the world (not just the UK) needs to shift away from Eurocentrism, moving towards a universal but equally personalised development outlook. This review provides an outline of the major problem areas in the UK food system and presents potential solutions aimed at helping guide the government's decision‐making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The COVID‐19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study aims to assess the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the adult population in multiple countries. This paper describes the third wave of the UK survey (the 'parent' strand of the Consortium) during July‐August 2020. Methods: Adults (N = 2025) who participated in the baseline and/or first follow‐up surveys were reinvited to participate in this survey, which assessed: (1) COVID‐19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours; (2) the occurrence of common mental disorders; as well as the role of (3) psychological factors and (4) social and political attitudes, in influencing the public's response to the pandemic. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure that the cross‐sectional sample is nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, and representative of the baseline sample characteristics for household composition, ethnicity, urbanicity and born/raised in UK. Results: 1166 adults (57.6% of baseline participants) provided full interviews at Wave 3. The raking procedure successfully re‐balanced the cross‐sectional sample to within 1% of population estimates across selected socio‐demographic characteristics. Conclusion: This paper demonstrates the strength of the C19PRC Study data to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research addressing important public health questions relating to the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we take up the call to further examine structural injustice in health, and racial inequalities in particular. We examine the many facets of racism: structural, interpersonal and institutional as they appeared in the COVID‐19 pandemic in the UK, and emphasize the relevance of their systemic character. We suggest that such inequalities were entirely foreseeable, for their causal mechanisms are deeply ingrained in our social structures. It is by recognizing the conventional, un‐extraordinary nature of racism within social systems that we can begin to address socially mediated health inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

LINKED CONTENT This article is linked to Taxonera et al paper. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15804 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the 2020 COVID‐19 pandemic, one of the key components of many countries' strategies to reduce the spread of the virus is contact tracing. Objective: To explore public attitudes to a COVID‐19 contact tracing app in the United Kingdom. Setting: Online video‐conferencing. Participants: 27 participants, UK residents aged 18 years and older. Methods: Qualitative study consisting of six focus groups carried out between 1st‐12th May, 2020 (39‐50 days into the UK 'lockdown'). Results: Participants were divided as to whether or not they felt they would use the app. Analysis revealed five themes: (1) lack of information and misconceptions surrounding COVID‐19 contact tracing apps; (2) concerns over privacy; (3) concerns over stigma; (4)concerns over uptake; and (5) contact tracing as the 'greater good'. Concerns over privacy, uptake and stigma were particularly significant amongst those stated they will not be using the app, and the view that the app is for the 'greater good' was particularly significant amongst those who stated they will be using the app. One of the most common misconceptions about the app was that it could allow users to specifically identify and map COVID‐19 cases amongst their contacts and in their vicinity. Conclusions: Our participants were torn over whether digital contact tracing is a good idea or not, and views were heavily influenced by moral reasoning. Patient or Public Contribution: No patients were involved in this study. The public were not involved in the development of the research questions, research design or outcome measures. A pilot focus group with participants not included in the present paper was used to help test and refine the focus group questions. Summary results were disseminated via email to participants prior to publication for feedback and comment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The C19PRC study aims to assess the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the adult population of the UK, Republic of Ireland, and Spain. This paper describes the conduct of the first two waves of the UK survey (the "parent" strand of the Consortium) during March–April 2020. Methods: A longitudinal, internet panel survey was designed to assess: (1) COVID‐19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors; (2) the occurrence of common mental health disorders as well as the role of (3) psychological factors and (4) social and political attitudes, in influencing the public's response to the pandemic. Quota sampling (age, sex, and household income) was used to recruit a nationally representative sample of adults. Results: Two thousand and twenty five adults were recruited at baseline, and 1406 were followed‐up one‐month later (69.4% retention rate). The baseline sample was representative of the UK population in relation to economic activity, ethnicity, and household composition. Attrition was predicted by key socio‐demographic characteristics, and an inverse probability weighting procedure was employed to ensure the follow‐up sample was representative of the baseline sample. Conclusion: The C19PRC study data has strong generalizability to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research on important public health questions relating to the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comparative optimism, the belief that negative events are more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself, is well established in health risk research. It is unknown, however, whether comparative optimism also permeates people's health expectations and potentially behaviour during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Objectives: Data were collected through an international survey (N = 6485) exploring people's thoughts and psychosocial behaviours relating to COVID‐19. This paper reports UK data on comparative optimism. In particular, we examine the belief that negative events surrounding risk and recovery from COVID‐19 are perceived as more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself. Methods: Using online snowball sampling through social media, anonymous UK survey data were collected from N = 645 adults during weeks 5‐8 of the UK COVID‐19 lockdown. The sample was normally distributed in terms of age and reflected the UK ethnic and disability profile. Findings: Respondents demonstrated comparative optimism where they believed that as compared to others of the same age and gender, they were unlikely to experience a range of controllable (eg accidentally infect/ be infected) and uncontrollable (eg need hospitalization/ intensive care treatment if infected) COVID‐19‐related risks in the short term (P <.001). They were comparatively pessimistic (ie thinking they were more at risk than others for developing COVID‐19‐related infection or symptoms) when thinking about the next year. Discussion: This is one of the first ever studies to report compelling comparative biases in UK adults' thinking about COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

LINKED CONTENT This article is linked to Taxonera et al paper. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15804 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]