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]

Aim: The aim of the paper is to enhance understanding of how members of the public make sense of the Covid-19 vaccines and to understand the factors influencing their attitudes towards such artefacts of pandemic governance. Methods: The paper draws on 23 online in-depth interviews with members of the UK public and builds on relevant literature to examine participants' perceptions of the benefits and risks of Covid-19 vaccines, the sources that have shaped their attitudes, and the level of trust they have towards the government's handling of the pandemic through vaccines. Results: The findings indicate that participants generally felt that the benefits of having the vaccine outweigh the risks and that Covid-19 vaccines are a crucial mechanism for enabling society to return to normal. Vaccine acceptance was, for some, strongly linked to a sense of social responsibility and the duty to protect others. However, some participants expressed concerns with regard to the side-effects of Covid-19 vaccines and their perceived potential impact on fertility and DNA makeup. Participants used various sources of information to learn about Covid-19 vaccines and understand their function, benefits, and risks. The majority of participants criticised the government's response during the early stages of the pandemic yet felt positive about the vaccine rollout. Conclusion: Just as with any other vaccination programme, the success of the Covid-19 immunisation campaigns does not only depend on the efficacy of the vaccines themselves or the ability to secure access to them, but also on a myriad of other factors which include public compliance and trust in governments and health authorities. To support an effective immunisation campaign that is capable of bringing the pandemic to an end, governments need to understand public concerns, garner trust, and devise adequate strategies for engaging the public and building more resilient societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, this paper explores the perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine among South Asian communities residing in the UK. Thirty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted using a qualitative approach and analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants represented Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, Afghani, and Nepali backgrounds. The participants revealed that family and community influence their perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine. The results suggest that normalizing vaccine acceptance, addressing unknown side effects, and popularizing vaccine efficacy data will increase vaccine uptake within the South Asian community in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim of this study was to explore the impact of the pandemic on the emotional and mental well‐being of family carers, care home staff and residents, in light of changing restrictions, increased testing and vaccination rollout in the UK. Design Longitudinal, qualitative semi‐structured interview study. Methods: Remote semi‐structured interviews were conducted with family carers of care home residents with dementia and care home staff from different care homes across the UK. Baseline and follow‐up interviews were conducted in October/November 2020 and March 2021, respectively. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis involving members of the public with caring experiences. Results: In all, 42 family carers and care home staff participated at baseline, with 20 family carers and staff followed up. We identified four themes: (1) Developing anger and frustration; (2) Impact on relationships; (3) Stress and burnout; and (4) Behavioural changes, and perceived impact on residents. The mental health of everyone involved, including family carers, care home staff and residents, has been negatively affected, and relationships between family carers and staff have been severely strained. There was a general lack of adequate mental health support, with little relief. Conclusions: The pandemic has had a detrimental impact on the lives of those surrounding care homes—from residents and staff to family carers. Consideration should be given on how to best support the mental health needs of all three groups, by providing adequate easily accessible mental health care for all. This should also focus on rebuilding the relationships between family carers and care home staff. Impact This is the first paper to highlight the effects of the long‐lasting and miscommunicated restrictions on residents, carers and care home staff, and highlight the urgent need for continued mental health support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background vaccination uptake in the UK and increased care home testing are likely affecting care home visitation. With scant scientific evidence to date, the aim of this longitudinal qualitative study was to explore the impact of both (vaccination and testing) on the conduct and experiences of care home visits. Methods family carers of care home residents with dementia and care home staff from across the UK took part in baseline (October/November 2020) and follow-up interviews (March 2021). Public advisers were involved in all elements of the research. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results across 62 baseline and follow-up interviews with family carers (n  = 26; 11) and care home staff (n  = 16; 9), five core themes were developed: delayed and inconsistent offers of face-to-face visits; procedures and facilitation of visits; variable uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine; misinformation, education and free choice; frustration and anger among family carers. The variable uptake in staff, compared to family carers, was a key factor seemingly influencing visitation, with a lack of clear guidance leading care homes to implement infection control measures and visitation rights differently. Conclusions we make five recommendations in this paper to enable improved care home visitation in the ongoing, and in future, pandemics. Visits need to be enabled and any changes to visiting rights must be used as a last resort, reviewed regularly in consultation with residents and carers and restored as soon as possible as a top priority, whilst more education needs to be provided surrounding vaccination for care home staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19-related inequities experienced by racial and ethnic minority groups including healthcare professionals mirror wider health inequities, which risk being perpetuated by lower uptake of vaccination. We aim to better understand lower uptake among racial and ethnic minority staff groups to inform initiatives to enhance uptake. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted (October 2020–January 2021) with UK-based healthcare staff. Data were inductively and thematically analysed. Vaccine decision-making processes were underpinned by an overarching theme, 'weighing up risks of harm against potential benefits to self and others'. Sub-themes included 'fear of harm', 'moral/ethical objections', 'potential benefits to self and others', 'information and misinformation', and 'institutional or workplace pressure'. We identified ways in which these were weighted more heavily towards vaccine hesitancy for racial and ethnic minority staff groups influenced by perceptions about institutional and structural discrimination. This included suspicions and fear around institutional pressure to be vaccinated, racial injustices in vaccine development and testing, religious or ethical concerns, and legitimacy and accessibility of vaccine messaging and communication. Drawing on a critical race perspective, we conclude that acknowledging historical and contemporary abuses of power is essential to avoid perpetuating and aggravating mistrust by de-contextualising hesitancy from the social processes affecting hesitancy, undermining efforts to increase vaccine uptake. [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]

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]