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]

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: Contemporary research into non‐vaccination has highlighted some of the attitudes, beliefs and characteristics of non‐vaccinating parents with recent research also beginning to examine the journey to non‐vaccination. However, the interaction between gender, identity and non‐vaccination is less well understood, as well as the non‐vaccination journey for parents in the United Kingdom. Methods: Using purposive sampling, we recruited mothers who have rejected some or all of their child's routine vaccinations in the last 5–10 years. Semi‐ structured interviews were conducted by phone in late 2020 and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Ten mothers were interviewed. They differed in socio‐economic, educational and cultural backgrounds, yet all wanted the same thing: to have happy and healthy children, a goal which they saw as their responsibility and within their control and did not include vaccination. Within this shared parenting priority, identities varied considerably. Most mothers strongly rejected the label or identity of 'anti‐vaxxer', preferring alternative terms with less negative social connotations. The decision not to vaccinate was predominantly made by mothers, describing a dynamic where mothers (rather than fathers/partners) were clearly responsible for their children's health, but this largely appeared to be internalized as the mother's role. Conclusions: The heterogeneity of mother's identities within the non‐vaccination movement and the pressures on mothers to raise children with 'optimum health' explored in this study suggest that non‐vaccination is a largely individual choice that requires nuanced and compassionate engagement to understand the root causes behind this decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mutual aid groups developed and mobilized in communities across the UK and globally at the outset of the pandemic in order to support vulnerable community members with practical assistance and emotional support, with some understanding their work in political terms. This study adopted a "social cure" lens to investigate the effects of group identification and group perceptions on anxiety and coping self‐efficacy among members of UK Covid‐19 mutual aid groups. Survey data were collected from self‐identified members of these groups (N = 844) during the initial period of "lockdown" restrictions in April – May 2020. Correlational analyses showed that identification with the mutual aid group was linked to more positive group perceptions and better self‐reported psychological outcomes. Perceived group politicization showed the reverse pattern. Mixed support for the "social cure" model was evident; the effect of group identification on coping self‐efficacy (but not anxiety) was serially mediated by perceived support and collective efficacy. Perceived group politicization was a significant moderator, seeming to amplify the indirect effect of group identification on coping self‐efficacy via perceived support. Results are discussed in light of previous empirical work on the social cure and Covid‐19 mutual aid groups. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Given the much greater COVID‐19 mortality risk experienced by people with intellectual disabilities (ID), understanding the willingness of people with ID to take a COVID‐19 vaccine is a major public health issue. Method: In December 2020 to February 2021, across the United Kingdom, 621 adults with ID were interviewed remotely and 348 family carers or support workers of adults with ID with greater needs completed an online survey, including a question on willingness to take a COVID‐19 vaccine if offered. Results: Eighty‐seven per cent of interviewees with ID were willing to take a COVID‐19 vaccine, with willingness associated with white ethnicity, having already had a flu vaccine, gaining information about COVID‐19 from television but not from social media, and knowing COVID‐19 social restrictions rules. A percentage of 81.7% of surveyed carers of adults with ID with greater needs reported that the person would be willing to take a COVID‐19 vaccine, with willingness associated with white ethnicity, having a health condition of concern in the context of COVID‐19, having had a flu vaccine, being close to someone who had died due to COVID‐19, and having shielded at some point during the pandemic. Conclusions: Reported willingness to take the COVID‐19 vaccine is high among adults with ID in the United Kingdom, with factors associated with willingness having clear implications for public health policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of shared identity in predicting both ingroup helping behaviour and adherence to protective norms during COVID‐19 has been extensively theorized, but remains largely under‐investigated. We build upon previous Social Identity research into community resilience by testing the role of pre‐existing local community (or 'neighbourhood') identity as a predictor of these outcomes, via the mediator of perceived social support. Community residents in the UK completed a longitudinal online survey four months before lockdown (T1; N = 253), one month before lockdown (T2; N = 217), and two months into lockdown (T3; N = 149). The cross‐lagged panel analysis shows that T1 community identification predicts T3 giving and receiving of pandemic‐related support, and that these effects occur via the perception of community support at the second time point (while the alternative pathway from T1 support via T2 identification is non‐significant). Moreover, we show that T1 community identification also directly predicts lockdown adherence at T3. Our findings point to the pivotal role played by community identity in effective behavioural responses to the pandemic, and the need to support and foster community development to facilitate local community resilience as the crisis continues to unfold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]