Search

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]

In this paper, we use a UK case study to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the mental health (emotional, psychological, social wellbeing) of farmers. We outline the drivers of poor farming mental health, the manifold impacts of the pandemic at a time of policy and environmental change, and identify lessons that can be learned to develop resilience in farming communities against future shocks. We undertook a survey answered by 207 farmers across the UK, focusing on drivers of poor mental health and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also conducted 22 in-depth interviews with individuals in England, Scotland and Wales who provide mental health support to farmers. These explored how and why the COVID-19 pandemic affected the mental health of farmers. These interviews were supplemented by 93 survey responses from a similar group of support providers (UK-wide). We found that the pandemic exacerbated underlying drivers of poor mental health and wellbeing in farming communities. 67% of farmers surveyed reported feeling more stressed, 63% felt more anxious, 38% felt more depressed, and 12% felt more suicidal. The primary drivers of poor mental health identified by farmers during the pandemic included decreased social contact and loneliness, issues with the general public on private land, and moving online for social events. Support providers also highlighted relationship and financial issues, illness, and government inspections as drivers of poor mental health. Some farmers, conversely, outlined positive impacts of the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic is just one of many potential stressors associated with poor farming mental health and its impacts are likely to be long-lasting and delayed. Multiple stressors affecting farmers at the same time can create a tipping point. Therefore, there is a need for long-term support and ongoing evaluation of the drivers of poor mental health in farming families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social care Personal Assistants (PAs) are directly employed by individuals to assist with activities of daily living such as help or support with personal care, shopping, household tasks and community participation. This option is encouraged by UK public funding. In England, disabled people's support organisations initially offered assistance with such arrangements, although numbers doing this have declined. The Covid‐19 pandemic provided the opportunity to ask those remaining organisations providing support for PA employers about their activities during this time and the questions being posed to them by PA employers. This paper reports data from 15 interviews undertaken March–July 2021 with disability support organisation representatives. We identified one overarching theme 'Working to prevent and challenge marginalisation of PA employers', with three related subthemes: (1) Advocating for the voice of a forgotten group; (2) Needing to be proactive and (3) Adapting to new tasks and ways of working. Participant accounts focused on representing the needs of disabled people to the authorities and providing concise, timely and accurate information to PA employers, particularly around the use of public funds during Covid‐19. Remote working amplified the digital‐divide, resulting in these organisations working hard to ensure PA employers received important information about their support options. Befriending services and Covid‐hubs were established by some organisations to reduce isolation and risks of poor mental health amongst PA employers. Many of the challenges facing PA employers existed pre‐pandemic but were perceived to have been heightened during it, reflecting the value of and need for the work of these local support organisations. Our findings suggest areas where effective contingency planning drawn from closer collaboration between disability support organisations and central and local government might usefully be focussed. The potential for specific services or organisations to be commissioned to provide such support is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore perspectives of Mesothelioma UK clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) on their role in providing palliative care for patients with mesothelioma and their families. Design: A qualitative descriptive approach using focus group and interview methods. Methods: Focus groups and semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 16 Mesothelioma UK clinical nurse specialists using the online software Google Meet. Data collection was carried out in Jan‐Feb 2021 and data were analysed using thematic analysis. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) was used as the reporting guideline for this paper. Results: Four main themes were identified from the data: Mesothelioma UK clinical nurse specialist role in relation to palliative care; joint working with specialist palliative care and community services; patients and family carer's willingness to engage with palliative care services; and the impact of COVID‐19 on palliative care for mesothelioma patients. Conclusion: This study provides valuable insights into palliative care needs in mesothelioma. Patients with mesothelioma and their families have significant palliative care needs throughout the course of their illness from diagnosis to the end of life. Mesothelioma UK CNS's play a crucial role in supporting patients' and families palliative care needs, and are highly skilled in providing this care. Impact By acknowledging the role of Mesothelioma UK CNS's in palliative care provision, and supporting collaborative working between specialist and generalist palliative care providers, there is the capacity to significantly improve palliative care in mesothelioma and improve outcomes for patients and their families. [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]

INTRODUCTION During the pandemic, smokers who wished to access support to quit faced additional barriers. A smoking cessation service which utilized pharmacist independent prescribers working within community pharmacy was implemented. Clients received behavioral advice via a consultation with an advisor and then three consultations with a pharmacist, who prescribed varenicline, where appropriate. Consultations were by phone or video. This evaluation assessed the self-reported outcomes and experiences of clients and pharmacists. METHODS A mixed-methods approach was used involving both on-line questionnaires to clients and interviews with a sample of questionnaire respondents and participating prescribing pharmacists. RESULTS The questionnaire was completed by 85 clients with 59% reporting they had quit. Eleven clients and seven out of eight pharmacists were interviewed. Varenicline had been received by 96% of clients. The best aspects of the service reported by clients in the questionnaire and at interview were support received from the pharmacist and ease of access to varenicline. Clients regarded the service as being 'safe' to access during the pandemic. Nearly three-quarters of client respondents (72%) stated no service improvements were required. However, national supply challenges made collection of varenicline from the nominated pharmacy an issue. Some clients experienced a long wait-time before accessing the service. For pharmacists, the service offered flexibility including the opportunity to contact clients 'out of office' hours without distractions. However, not being physically in the pharmacy could result in them not being able to access the client's medicine history. Pharmacists identified that remote consultations were not ideal for all clients. CONCLUSIONS Pharmacist prescribers can deliver effective smoking cessation services through remote consultations. Greater flexibility would allow the service to be tailored to the client's need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Successful adoption of POCTs (Point-of-Care tests) for COVID-19 in care homes requires the identification of ideal use cases and a full understanding of the contextual and usability factors that affect test results and minimise biosafety risks. This paper presents a scoping-usability and test performance study of a microfluidic immunofluorescence assay for COVID-19 in care homes. Methods: A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted in four UK care homes to scope usability and to assess the agreement with qRT-PCR. A dry run with luminescent dye was conducted to explore biosafety issues. Results: The agreement analysis was conducted on 227 asymptomatic participants (159 staff and 68 residents) and 14 symptomatic participants (5 staff and 9 residents). Asymptomatic specimens showed 50% (95% CI:1.3%−98.7%) positive agreement and 96% (95% CI: 92.5%−98.1%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.857−0.965). Symptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%−99.6%) positive agreement and 100% (95% CI: 63.1%−100%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.857 (95% CI: 0.549−1). The dry run highlighted four main sources of contamination that led to the modification of the standard operating procedures. Simulation post-modification showed no further evidence of contamination. Conclusion: Careful consideration of biosafety issues and contextual factors associated with care home are mandatory for safe use the POCT. Whilst POCT may have some utility for ruling out COVID-19, further diagnostic accuracy evaluations are needed to promote effective adoption. [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]

Aim: To understand the experience of critical care nurses during the COVID‐19 pandemic, through the application of the Job‐Demand‐Resource model of occupational stress. Design: Qualitative interview study. Methods: Twenty‐eight critical care nurses (CCN) working in ICU in the UK NHS during the COVID‐19 pandemic took part in semi‐structured interviews between May 2021 and May 2022. Interviews were guided by the constructs of the Job‐Demand Resource model. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Results: The most difficult job demands were the pace and amount, complexity, physical and emotional effort of their work. Prolonged high demands led to CCN experiencing emotional and physical exhaustion, burnout, post‐traumatic stress symptoms and impaired sleep. Support from colleagues and supervisors was a core job resource. Sustained demands and impaired physical and psychological well‐being had negative organizational consequences with CCN expressing increased intention to leave their role. Conclusions: The combination of high demands and reduced resources had negative impacts on the psychological well‐being of nurses which is translating into increased consideration of leaving their profession. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: The full impacts of the pandemic on the mental health of CCN are unlikely to resolve without appropriate interventions. Impact: Managers of healthcare systems should use these findings to inform: (i) the structure and organization of critical care workplaces so that they support staff to be well, and (ii) supportive interventions for staff who are carrying significant psychological distress as a result of working during and after the pandemic. These changes are required to improve staff recruitment and retention. Reporting Method: We used the COREQ guidelines for reporting qualitative studies. Patient and Public Contribution: Six CCN provided input to survey content and interview schedule. Two authors and members of the study team (T.S. and S.C.) worked in critical care during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Previous literature finds that having a child with a cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) may pose social and emotional challenges for parents. For parents of children born during the Covid-19 pandemic, such challenges may be heightened. Further, novel demands brought about by the pandemic could have caused additional hardships. The aim of this study was to describe the impact of the pandemic on new parents through qualitative exploration of their experiences. Design: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 parents of children born in the United Kingdom with CL/P between January and June 2020, around the start of the pandemic. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Three themes, with sub-themes, were identified. The first theme, " Changes to Healthcare: The Impact of Restrictions and Reduced Contact", discussed the impact of the pandemic on perinatal care, the care received from the specialist CL/P teams, and parents' experiences of virtual consultations. The second theme, "Family Functioning During the Pandemic", covered parental anxiety, fathers' experiences, and social support. The third theme, " Surgical Prioritisation: Delays and Uncertainty", addressed changes to surgical protocols, coping with uncertainty, complications associated with delayed surgery, and how parents created positive meaning from this period. Conclusions: A range of increased and additional psychosocial impacts for parents were identified, along with several coping strategies, utilization of social support, and the positive aspects of their experiences. As the pandemic continues, close monitoring of families affected by CL/P remains imperative, particularly for those at risk of emotional distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to measures that reduced social contact and support. We explored whether UK residents with more frequent or supportive social contact had fewer depressive symptoms during March−August 2020, and potential factors moderating the relationship. Methods: A convenience sample of UK dwelling participants aged ⩾18 in the internet-based longitudinal COVID-19 Social Study completed up to 22 weekly questionnaires about face-to-face and phone/video social contact frequency, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms using the PHQ-9. Mixed linear models examined associations between social contact and support, and depressive symptoms. We examined for interaction by empathic concern, perspective taking and pre-COVID social contact frequency. Results: In 71 117 people with mean age 49 years (standard deviation 15), those with high perceived social support scored 1.836 (1.801–1.871) points lower on PHQ-9 than those with low support. Daily face-to-face or phone/video contact was associated with lower depressive symptoms (0.258 (95% confidence interval 0.225–0.290) and 0.117 (0.080–0.154), respectively) compared to no contact. The negative association between social relationships and depressive symptoms was stronger for those with high empathic concern, perspective taking and usual sociability. Conclusions: We found during lockdown that those with higher quality or more face-to-face or phone/video contact had fewer depressive symptoms. Contact quality was more strongly associated than quantity. People who were usually more sociable or had higher empathy had more depressive symptoms during enforced reduced contact. The results have implications for COVID-19 and potential future pandemic management, and for understanding the relationship between social factors and mental health. [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]

This study examined the emergence and implementation of community touchpoints established in the UK during the COVID‐19 pandemic for victims/survivors of domestic abuse (DA). Community touchpoints are designated places, both online and in accessible settings such as pharmacies and banks, where victims/survivors can seek confidential advice and be directed to expert DA services. The research adopted a case study approach and explored a range of perspectives through expert interviews, document analysis, consultation with survivors and stakeholders and a survey of DA co‐ordinators. Four national community touchpoint schemes were identified and, of these, three were implemented rapidly and were available in 2020–2021 when the UK experienced lockdowns. Partnerships between Government/voluntary organisations and commercial businesses‐assisted design and implementation. Some stakeholders considered that the schemes lacked responsivity to the local context and noted challenges in providing a confidential service in rural areas. Whilst pharmacies, banks and online spaces were identified as non‐stigmatised and trusted places to seek advice, community touchpoints were judged less accessible for some groups including those experiencing digital poverty and victims whose movements were heavily scrutinised. Most of the touchpoint schemes targeted adults only. There were also concerns about whether frontline staff in commercial businesses received sufficient training. Whilst robust evidence of outcomes was limited, there were indications that the schemes had achieved good reach with some early evidence of take‐up. Testimonials indicated that victims/survivors were using the touchpoints in flexible ways which met their needs. Moreover, the wide reach and visibility of these initiatives delivered in non‐stigmatised settings may have served to raise public awareness of DA, reducing the silence that has traditionally surrounded it. Further research into the use and impact of these initiatives is required and there may be future potential to extend community touchpoints to include children and young people experiencing DA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communication via technology is regarded as an effective way of maintaining social connection and helping individuals to cope with the psychological impact of social distancing measures during a pandemic. However, there is little information about which factors have influenced increased use of technology to communicate with others during lockdowns and whether this has changed over time. Objective: The aim of this study is to explore which psychosocial factors (eg, mental health and employment) and pandemic-related factors (eg, shielding and time) influenced an increase in communication via technology during the first lockdown in the United Kingdom. Methods: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted between April and July 2020, examining thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with the pandemic, including communicating more using technology (eg, via messaging, phone, or video). We collected sociodemographic information, employment status, mental health service user status, and depression symptoms. We used hierarchical logistic regression to test which factors were associated with communicating more using technology during the lockdown. Results: Participants (N=1464) were on average 41.07 (SD 14.61) years old, and mostly women (n=1141; 77.9%), White (n=1265; 86.4%), and employed (n=1030; 70.4%). Participants reported a mild level of depression (mean 9.43, SD 7.02), and were communicating more using technology (n=1164; 79.5%). The hierarchical regression indicated that people who were employed and experiencing lower levels of depression were more likely to report increased communication using technology during a lockdown period of the COVID-19 pandemic, and over time, men communicated more using technology. Increased use of technology to communicate was related to greater communication and the inability to see others due to the social distancing measures enacted during the lockdown. It was not related to a general increase in technology use during the lockdown. Conclusions: Although most participants reported increased use of technology to communicate during a lockdown period of the COVID-19 pandemic, this was more apparent in the employed and those experiencing low levels of depression. Moving forward, we should continue to monitor groups who may have been excluded from the benefits of support and communication using technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People across the world have responded to the pandemic by mobilizing and organizing to support their communities, setting up mutual aid groups to provide practical, financial, and social support. Mutual aid means short‐term 'crisis response' for some, while for other groups, it is a chance to radically restructure society, and what it means to be a member of that society. Drawing on social representations theory and previous work on citizenship in social and political psychology, we examined the ways in which mutual aid was understood and performed by members of UK Covid‐19 mutual aid groups. We conducted 29 interviews with members of these groups in May/June 2020. A reflexive thematic analysis showed that mutual aid groups were characterized as complex, efficient, and non‐hierarchical units, operating on the principles of solidarity, kindness, and trust. Two tensions were evident in the data, specifically between (1) collaboration with existing organizations and structures (e.g., local government and the police), and resistance to it and (2) maximizing group inclusivity and sustaining political critique. Findings are discussed in relation to existing theoretical and empirical work on citizenship and mutual aid groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the onset of the Covid‐19 pandemic, the UK, like many countries, has had restrictions on social contact, and injunctions of 'social distancing'. This study aimed to generate new insights into men's experiences of loneliness during the pandemic, and consider the ramifications of these for continued/future restrictions, the easing of restrictions, and the future beyond the pandemic. Twenty qualitative interviews were conducted with men between January and March 2021. A maximum variation purpose sample frame required at least three non‐white men, three LGBTQ+men, three men with a university education, three without a university education, three 18–30 years old, and three aged 60+. Thematic analysis, focused on semantic themes, was employed as part of a 'grounded' epistemology whereby the stated perspectives of the interviewees drove the content of the study. Seven themes were constructed: (i) lost and new activities and routines; (ii) remote social interaction; (iii) narrowed social spheres; (iv) rethought and renewed recognition of what is important; (v) loneliness with a purpose; (vi) anxiety of social contact; and (vii) easier for themselves than others. Lost routines, fewer meaningful activities, and a reduction in face‐to‐face interaction, were framed as challenges to preventing loneliness. Solo‐living gay men seemed particularly negatively affected. However, many men displayed new, more covid‐safe routines and activities. Remote forms of interaction were often utilised, and though they were imperfect, were constructed as worth engaging with, and held capacity for improvement. A moral need to reduce transmission of SARS‐COV‐2, and a fear of catching it, became important features of participants lives that also affected loneliness. Men at higher risk of health complications from Covid‐19 were particularly likely to highlight anxiety of social contact. Reducing restrictions alone may not return everyone to pre‐pandemic levels of loneliness, particularly if the pandemic remains a significant public health issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known on how the pandemic has changed care home care delivery. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of COVID‐19 on care provision and visits in care homes from staff and family members' perspectives. For this purpose, we conducted a telephone‐ and zoom‐based qualitative semi‐structured interview study. Care home staff and family carers of people living with dementia (PLWD) across the UK were recruited via convenience sampling and participated via telephone or online. Participants took part in a semi‐structured remote interview. Data were collected between October and November 2020. Anonymised transcripts were analysed separately by two research team members using thematic analysis, with codes discussed and themes generated jointly, supported by research team input. 42 participants (26 family carers and 16 care home staff) took part. Five themes were generated: (a) Care home reputation and financial implications; (b) Lack of care; (c) Communication or lack thereof; (d) Visiting rights/changes based on residents' needs; (e) Deterioration of residents. With a lack of clear guidance throughout the pandemic, care homes delivered care differently with disparities in the levels and types of visiting allowed for family members. Lack of communication between care homes and family members, but also government and care homes, led to family carers feeling excluded and concerned about the well‐being of their relative. Improved communication and clear guidance for care homes and the public are required to negate the potentially damaging effects of COVID‐19 restrictions upon residents, their families and the carers who support them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dementia is a life-limiting illness, but the trajectory of dying can be difficult to establish and care at end of life can be variable and problematic. Methods: This UK study was carried out to explore the end-of-life-care experiences of people with dementia from the perspective of their family carers. In-depth interviews were conducted with 40 bereaved family carers of people with dementia. Results: Forty family carers (male n = 9, female n = 31) age range: 18–86 years were interviewed. Issues with poor communication were common. The hard work of caring and issues regarding unpredictability of living and dying with dementia were also commonplace within the study. Only three patients were referred for specialist palliative care support at the end of life, all of whom had a dual diagnosis of dementia and cancer. Conclusion: This qualitative study has identified that there are several gaps in the end-of-life care of people with dementia, and frequently, there is poor communication during the last year of life. The need for high-quality integrated care for people dying with dementia with appropriate support during the last year of life is identified. COVID-19 has disproportionately affected people with dementia, and in the post-pandemic era, there is an urgent need to ensure every person dying with dementia is supported to die in their preferred place and that family members are supported and enabled to be treated as the 'expert' in terms of their knowledge of their relatives' care and preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The overall aim of this evaluation was to look at the impact of the changes in working practices during the pandemic on nurses. This secondary analysis provided an evaluation of virtual care and being able/required to work from home. Design: This was secondary analysis of an evaluation using semi‐structured interviews. Methods: Conducted at a single National Health Service (NHS) university hospital in the United Kingdom between May and July 2020. Forty‐eight operational leads and nurses participated in semi‐structured interviews which were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework analysis. Results: Two overarching themes emerged relating to the patient experience and nursing experience. There were both positive and negative elements associated with virtual care and remote working related to these themes. However, the majority of nurses found that virtual clinics were useful when proper resources were provided, and managerial strategies were put in place to support them. Participants felt that virtual care could benefit many but not all patient groups moving forward, and that flexibility around working from home would be desirable in the future. Conclusion: Virtual care and remote working were implemented to accommodate the restrictions imposed because of the pandemic. The benefits of these changes to nurses and patients support these being business as usual. However, clear policies are needed to ensure that nurses feel supported when working remotely and there are robust assessments in place to ensure virtual care is provided to patients who have access to the necessary technology. Impact: This was a study of the move to virtual care and remote working during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Telemedicine and flexible working were not common in the NHS prior to the pandemic but the current evaluation supports the role out of these as standard care with policies in place to ensure that nurses and patients are appropriately supported. [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]