Search

Complementing the well-established evidence base on health inequalities experienced by migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in the UK; we examined the extent to which their right to equal non-discriminatory access to health services (promotive, preventive, curative) was upheld during the COVID-19 pandemic. Arksey and O′Malley's scoping review framework. A comprehensive search was conducted on Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL using detailed MESH terms, for literature published between 01 January 2020 and 01 January 2024. The process was supported by a ten-page Google search and hand searching of reference lists. 42 records meeting the inclusion criteria were charted, coded inductively and analysed thematically in an integrated team-based approach. Dissonance between immigration regulation and health governance is illustrated in four themes: Health systems leveraged to (re)enforce the hostile environment; Dissonance between health rights on paper and in practice; Structural failures to overcome communication and digital exclusion; and COVID-19 vaccine (in)equity exacerbated fear, mistrust and exclusion. Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers encountered substantial individual, structural and policy-level barriers to accessing healthcare in the UK during COVID-19. Insecure immigration status, institutional mistrust, data-sharing and charging fears, communication challenges and digital exclusion impacted heavily on their ability to access healthcare in an equitable non-discriminatory manner. An inclusive and innovative health equity and rights-based responses reaching all migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are warranted if the National Health Service is to live up to its promise of ' leaving no one behind' in post-pandemic and future responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key epidemiological parameters, including the effective reproduction number, RðtÞ, and the instantaneous growth rate, rðtÞ, generated from an ensemble of models, have been informing public health policy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in the four nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK). However, estimation of these quantities became challenging with the scaling down of surveillance systems as part of the transition from the "emergency" to "endemic" phase of the pandemic. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) COVID-19 Infection Survey (CIS) provided an opportunity to continue estimating these parameters in the absence of other data streams. We used a penalised spline model fitted to the publicly-available ONS CIS test positivity estimates to produce a smoothed estimate of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity over time. The resulting fitted curve was used to estimate the "ONS-based" RðtÞ and rðtÞ across the four nations of the UK. Estimates produced under this model are compared to government-published estimates with particular consideration given to the contribution that this single data stream can offer in the estimation of these parameters. Depending on the nation and parameter, we found that up to 77% of the variance in the government-published estimates can be explained by the ONS-based estimates, demonstrating the value of this singular data stream to track the epidemic in each of the four nations. We additionally find that the ONS-based estimates uncover epidemic trends earlier than the corresponding government-published estimates. Our work shows that the ONS CIS can be used to generate key COVID-19 epidemiological parameters across the four UK nations, further underlining the enormous value of such population-level studies of infection. This is not intended as an alternative to ensemble modelling, rather it is intended as a potential solution to the aforementioned challenge faced by public health officials in the UK in early 2022. [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]

Background : Governments have relied on their citizens to adhere to a variety of transmission-reducing behaviours (TRBs) to suppress the Covid-19 pandemic. Understanding the psychological and sociodemographic predictors of adherence to TRBs will be heavily influenced by the particular theories used by researchers. This review aims to identify the theories and theoretical constructs used to understand adherence to TRBs during the pandemic within the UK social and legislative context. Methods: A systematic review identified studies to understand TRBs of adults in the UK during the pandemic. Identified theoretical constructs were coded to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data are presented as a narrative summary. Results: Thirty-five studies (n = 211,209) investigated 123 TRBs, applied 13 theoretical frameworks and reported 50 sociodemographic characteristics and 129 psychological constructs. Most studies used social cognition theories to understand TRBs and employed cross-sectional designs. Risk of sampling bias was high. Relationships between constructs and TRBs varied, but in general, beliefs about the disease (e.g. severity and risk perception) and about TRBs (e.g. behavioural norms) influenced behavioural intentions and self-reported adherence. More studies than not found that older people and females were more adherent. Conclusions: Behavioural scientists in the UK generated a significant and varied body of work to understand TRBs during the pandemic. However, more use of theories that do not rely on deliberative processes to effect behaviour change and study designs better able to support causal inferences should be used in future to inform public health policy and practice. Prospero Registration: CRD42021282699. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]