Leah Ffion Jones

Background: COVID-19 vaccines remain central to the UK government’s plan for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic. Average uptake of 3 doses in the United Kingdom stood at 66.7% as of March 2022; however, this rate varies across localities. Understanding the views of groups who have low vaccine uptake is crucial to guide efforts to improve vaccine uptake. Objective: This study aims to understand the public’s attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines in Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom. Methods: A qualitative thematic analysis of social media posts from Nottinghamshire-based profiles and data sources was conducted. A manual search strategy was used to search the Nottingham Post website and local Facebook and Twitter accounts from September 2021 to October 2021. Only comments in the public domain and in English were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 3508 comments from 1238 users on COVID-19 vaccine posts by 10 different local organizations were analyzed, and 6 overarching themes were identified: trust in the vaccines, often characterized by a lack of trust in vaccine information, information sources including the media, and the government; beliefs about safety including doubts about the speed of development and approval process, the severity of side effects, and belief that the ingredients are harmful; belief that the vaccines are not effective as people can still become infected and spread the virus and that the vaccines may increase transmission through shedding; belief that the vaccines are not necessary due to low perceived risk of death and severe outcomes and use of other protective measures such as natural immunity, ventilation, testing, face coverings, and self-isolation; individual rights and freedoms to be able to choose to be vaccinated or not without judgement or discrimination; and barriers to physical access. Conclusions: The findings revealed a wide range of beliefs and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. Implications for the vaccine program in Nottinghamshire include communication strategies delivered by trusted sources to address the gaps in knowledge identified while acknowledging some negatives such as side effects alongside emphasizing the benefits. These strategies should avoid perpetuating myths and avoid using scare tactics when addressing risk perceptions. Accessibility should also be considered with a review of current vaccination site locations, opening hours, and transport links. Additional research may benefit from using qualitative interviews or focus groups to further probe on the themes identified and explore the acceptability of the recommended interventions.

Objective: We examined whether varying information about long COVID would affect expectations about the illness. Method: In October 2021, we conducted a 2 (Illness Description: long COVID vs. ongoing COVID-19 recovery) × 2 (Symptom Uncertainty: uncertainty emphasized vs. not emphasized) × 2 (Efficacy of Support: enhanced vs. basic support) between-subjects randomized online experimental study. Participants (N = 1,110) were presented with a scenario describing a positive COVID-19 test result, followed by one of eight scenarios describing a long COVID diagnosis and then completed outcome measures of illness expectations including: symptom severity, symptom duration, quality of life, personal control, treatment control, and illness coherence. Results: We ran a series of 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs on the outcome variables. We found a main effect of illness description: individuals reported longer symptom duration and less illness coherence when the illness was described as long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery). There was a main effect of symptom uncertainty: when uncertainty was emphasized, participants reported longer expected symptom duration (p < .001), less treatment control (p = .031), and less illness coherence (p < .001) than when uncertainty was not emphasized. There was a main effect of efficacy of support: participants reported higher personal control (p = .004) and higher treatment control (p = .037) when support was enhanced (compared to basic support). Conclusions: Communications around long COVID should avoid emphasizing symptom uncertainty and aim to provide people with access to additional support and information on how they can facilitate their recovery.

Objectives Across diverse ethnic groups in the UK, explore attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccination and sources of COVID-19 information. Design Remote qualitative interviews and focus groups (FGs) conducted June–October 2020 before UK COVID-19 vaccine approval. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Setting England and Wales. Participants 100 participants from 19 self-identified ethnic groups. Results Mistrust and doubt were reported across ethnic groups. Many participants shared concerns about perceived lack of information about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy. There were differences within each ethnic group, with factors such as occupation and perceived health status influencing intention to accept a vaccine once made available. Across ethnic groups, participants believed that public contact occupations, older adults and vulnerable groups should be prioritised for vaccination. Perceived risk, social influences, occupation, age, comorbidities and engagement with healthcare influenced participants’ intentions to accept vaccination once available. All Jewish FG participants intended to accept, while all Traveller FG participants indicated they probably would not. Facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake across ethnic groups included: desire to return to normality and protect health and well-being; perceived higher risk of infection; evidence of vaccine safety and efficacy; vaccine availability and accessibility. COVID-19 information sources were influenced by social factors and included: friends and family; media and news outlets; research literature; and culture and religion. Participants across most different ethnic groups were concerned about misinformation or had negative attitudes towards the media. Conclusions During vaccination rollout, including boosters, commissioners and providers should provide accurate information, authentic community outreach and use appropriate channels to disseminate information and counter misinformation. Adopting a context-specific approach to vaccine resources, interventions and policies and empowering communities has potential to increase trust in the programme.

Objectives To explore public reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic across diverse ethnic groups. Design Remote qualitative interviews and focus groups in English or Punjabi. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis. Setting England and Wales, June to October 2020. Participants 100 participants from 19 diverse ‘self-identified’ ethnic groups. Results Dismay, frustration and altruism were reported across all ethnic groups during the first 6–9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dismay was caused by participants’ reported individual, family and community risks, and loss of support networks. Frustration was caused by reported lack of recognition of the efforts of ethnic minority groups (EMGs), inaction by government to address COVID-19 and inequalities, rule breaking by government advisors, changing government rules around: border controls, personal protective equipment, social distancing, eating out, and perceived poor communication around COVID-19 and the Public Health England COVID-19 disparities report (leading to reported increased racism and social isolation). Altruism was felt by all, in the resilience of National Health Service (NHS) staff and their communities and families pulling together. Data, participants’ suggested actions and the behaviour change wheel informed suggested interventions and policies to help control COVID-19. Conclusion To improve trust and compliance future reports or guidance should clearly explain any stated differences in health outcomes by ethnicity or other risk group, including specific messages for these groups and concrete actions to minimise any risks. Messaging should reflect the uncertainty in data or advice and how guidance may change going forward as new evidence becomes available. A contingency plan is needed to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 across all communities including EMGs, the vulnerable and socially disadvantaged individuals, in preparation for any rise in cases and for future pandemics. Equality across ethnicities for healthcare is essential, and the NHS and local communities will need to be supported to attain this.

Objectives Care homes have experienced a high number of COVID-19 outbreaks, and it is therefore important for care home employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. However, there is high vaccine hesitancy among this group. We aimed to understand barriers and facilitators to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as views on potential mandatory vaccination policies. Design Semi-structured interviews. Setting Care home employees in North West England. Interviews conducted in April 2021. Participants 10 care home employees (aged 25–61 years) in the North West, who had been invited to have, but not received the COVID-19 vaccine. Results We analysed the interviews using a framework analysis. Our analysis identified eight themes: perceived risk of COVID-19, effectiveness of the vaccine, concerns about the vaccine, mistrust in authorities, facilitators to getting the vaccine, views on mandatory vaccinations, negative experiences of care work during the COVID-19 pandemic, and communication challenges. Conclusions Making COVID-19 vaccination a condition of deployment may not result in increased willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccination, with most care home employees in this study favouring leaving their job rather than getting vaccinated. At a time when many care workers already had negative experiences during the pandemic due to perceived negative judgement from others and a perceived lack of support facing care home employees, policies that require vaccination as a condition of deployment were not positively received.

BACKGROUND COVID-19 vaccines remain central to the UK government’s plan for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic. Average uptake of 3 doses in the United Kingdom stood at 66.7% as of March 2022; however, this rate varies across localities. Understanding the views of groups who have low vaccine uptake is crucial to guide efforts to improve vaccine uptake. OBJECTIVE This study aims to understand the public’s attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines in Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom. METHODS A qualitative thematic analysis of social media posts from Nottinghamshire-based profiles and data sources was conducted. A manual search strategy was used to search the Nottingham Post website and local Facebook and Twitter accounts from September 2021 to October 2021. Only comments in the public domain and in English were included in the analysis. RESULTS A total of 3508 comments from 1238 users on COVID-19 vaccine posts by 10 different local organizations were analyzed, and 6 overarching themes were identified: trust in the vaccines, often characterized by a lack of trust in vaccine information, information sources including the media, and the government; beliefs about safety including doubts about the speed of development and approval process, the severity of side effects, and belief that the ingredients are harmful; belief that the vaccines are not effective as people can still become infected and spread the virus and that the vaccines may increase transmission through shedding; belief that the vaccines are not necessary due to low perceived risk of death and severe outcomes and use of other protective measures such as natural immunity, ventilation, testing, face coverings, and self-isolation; individual rights and freedoms to be able to choose to be vaccinated or not without judgement or discrimination; and barriers to physical access. CONCLUSIONS The findings revealed a wide range of beliefs and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. Implications for the vaccine program in Nottinghamshire include communication strategies delivered by trusted sources to address the gaps in knowledge identified while acknowledging some negatives such as side effects alongside emphasizing the benefits. These strategies should avoid perpetuating myths and avoid using scare tactics when addressing risk perceptions. Accessibility should also be considered with a review of current vaccination site locations, opening hours, and transport links. Additional research may benefit from using qualitative interviews or focus groups to further probe on the themes identified and explore the acceptability of the recommended interventions.

Objectives: Individuals who receive a negative lateral flow coronavirus test result may misunderstand it as meaning ‘no risk of infectiousness’, giving false reassurance. This experiment tested the impact of adding information to negative test result messages about residual risk and the need to continue protective behaviours. Design.: 4 (residual risk) × 2 (post-test result behaviours) between-subjects design. Setting.: Online. Participants: 1200 adults from a representative UK sample recruited via Prolific (12–15 March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated to one of eight messages. Residual risk messages were: (1) ‘Your coronavirus test result is negative’ (control); (2) message 1 plus ‘It’s likely you were not infectious when the test was done’ (current NHS Test & Trace (T&T); (3) message 2 plus ‘But there is still a chance you may be infectious’ (elaborated NHS T&T); and (4) message 3 plus infographic depicting residual risk (elaborated NHS T&T+infographic). Each message contained either no additional information or information about the need to continue following guidelines and protective behaviours. Outcome measures: (1) Proportion understanding residual risk of infectiousness and (2) likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours (scales 1–7). Results: The control message decreased understanding relative to the current NHS T&T message: 54% versus 71% (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=0.56 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95, p=0.030). Understanding increased with the elaborated NHS T&T (89%; AOR=3.25 95% CI 1.64 to 6.42, p=0.001) and elaborated NHS T&T+infographic (91%; AOR=5.16 95% CI 2.47 to 10.82, p2 (1)=0.18, p=0.669), being high ( M= 6.4, SD =0.9) across the sample. Conclusions: A considerable proportion of participants misunderstood the residual risk following a negative test result. The addition of a single sentence (‘But there is still a chance you may be infectious’) to current NHS T&T wording increased understanding of residual risk. Trial registration number: OSF: https://osf.io/byfz3/

Vaccination is vital to protect the public against COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We searched a range of databases (Embase, Medline, Psychology & Behavioral Science, PsycInfo, Web of Science and NIH Preprints Portfolio) from March 2020 to July 2021 for studies which reported primary quantitative or qualitative research on interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Outcome measures included vaccination uptake and reported intention to vaccinate. Reviews, position papers, conference abstracts, protocol papers and papers not in English were excluded. The NHLBI quality assessment was used to assess risk of bias. In total, 39 studies across 33 papers met the inclusion criteria. A total of 28 were assessed as good quality. They included interventions relating to communication content, communication delivery, communication presentation, policy or vaccination delivery, with 7 measuring vaccination uptake and 32 measuring vaccination intention. A narrative synthesis was conducted, which highlighted that there is reasonable evidence from studies investigating real behaviour suggesting that personalising communications and sending booking reminders via text message increases vaccine uptake. Findings on vaccination intention are mixed but suggest that communicating uncertainty about the vaccine does not decrease intention, whereas making vaccination mandatory could have a negative impact. Although much of the research used experimental designs, very few measured real behavioural outcomes. Understanding which interventions are most effective amongst vaccine-hesitant populations and in the context of booster vaccinations will be important as vaccine roll outs continue across the world.

Objectives: To explore attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccination, and influences and sources of information about COVID-19 across diverse ethnic groups (EGs) in the UK. Design: Remote qualitative interviews and focus groups (FGs) conducted June-October 2020 before UK COVID-19 vaccine approval. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis. Setting: General public in the community across England and Wales. Participants: 100 participants from 19 self-identified EGs with spoken English or Punjabi. Results: Mistrust and doubt were common themes across all EGs including white British and minority EGs, but more pronounced amongst Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black ethnicities and Travellers. Many participants shared concerns about perceived lack of information about COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy and potential unknown adverse effects. Across EGs participants stated occupations with public contact, older adults and vulnerable groups should be prioritised for vaccination. Perceived risk, social influences, occupation, age, co-morbidities and engagement with healthcare influenced participants’ intentions to accept vaccination once available; all Jewish FG participants intended to accept, while all Traveller FG participants indicated they probably would not. Facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake across all EGs included: desire to return to normality and protect health and wellbeing; perceived higher risk of infection; evidence of vaccine safety and efficacy; vaccine availability and accessibility. COVID-19 information sources were influenced by social factors, culture and religion and included: friends, family; media and news outlets; and research literature. Participants across most different EGs were concerned about misinformation or had negative attitudes towards the media. Conclusions: During vaccination programme roll-out, including boosters, commissioners and vaccine providers should provide accurate information, authentic community outreach, and use appropriate channels to disseminate information and counter misinformation. Adopting a context-specific approach to vaccine resources, interventions and policies and empowering communities has potential to increase trust in the programme. Article summary: strengths and limitations: This is amongst the largest qualitative studies on attitudes to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK general public across ethnic groups (EGs), ages and religions, adding insights from a broader range of participants. Qualitative methodology enabled discussion of participants’ responses around COVID-19 vaccination, probing to collect rich data to inform recommendations across EGs. Most data collection was undertaken in English, possibly excluding sectors of the population who may access COVID-19 information through different sources due to language. Data collection was June-October 2020 before COVID-19 vaccines were licensed. Attitudes are highly responsive to current information around a COVID-19 vaccine, as well as the state of the pandemic and perceived risk. Data were collected prior to much of the intervention work, putting the attitudes and intentions expressed in this study in a context of minimal community engagement and support. This provides a baseline snapshot of attitudes, providing the option to explore and assess the impact of such interventions. Socioeconomic data and index of multiple deprivation were not collected, limiting the ability to determine a possible accumulative effect of factors such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity and age.

Objectives To explore public reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic across diverse ethnic groups. Design Remote qualitative interviews and focus groups in English or Punjabi. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis. Setting England and Wales June-October 2020. Participants 100 participants from 19 diverse ‘self-identified’ ethnic groups. Results Dismay, frustration and altruism were reported across all ethnic groups during the first six to nine months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dismay was caused by participants’ reported individual, family and community risks, and loss of support networks. Frustration was caused by reported lack of recognition of the efforts of minority ethnic groups (MEGs), inaction by government to address COVID-19 and inequalities, rule breaking by government advisors, changing government rules around: border controls, personal protective equipment, social distancing, eating out, and perceived poor communication around COVID-19 and the Public Health England (PHE) COVID-19 disparities report (leading to reported increased racism and social isolation). Altruism was felt by all, in the resilience of NHS staff and their communities and families pulling together. Data, participants suggested actions, and the Behaviour Change Wheel informed suggested interventions and policies to help control COVID-19. Conclusion To maintain public trust, it is imperative that governmental bodies consider vulnerable groups, producing clear COVID-19 control guidance with contingency, fiscal, service provision and communication policies for the next rise in COVID-19 cases. This needs to be combined with public interventions including information, education, modelling and enablement of infection prevention through local community involvement and persuasion techniques or incentivisation. Government policy needs to review and include town and social planning leading to environmental restructuring that facilitates infection prevention control. This includes easy access to hand-washing facilities in homes, work, all food providers and shopping centres; toilet facilities as our Travellers mentioned, and adequate living accommodation and work environment facilitating IPC for all. Strengths and limitations This is amongst the largest qualitative studies on attitudes to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK general public across ethnic groups, ages and religions, adding insights to previous smaller qualitative studies, from a broader range of participants. The qualitative methodology allowed us to discuss participants’ responses around the COVID-19 pandemic, probing their answers to obtain detailed data to inform needs across ethnic groups. Most data collection was undertaken in English and therefore excludes non-English speaking sectors of the population who may have experienced the COVID-19 pandemic differently. We did not obtain the views of older members of the population over 70 years, who were most at risk. The data reflect public perceptions six to nine months into the pandemic when some of the social distancing rules had been relaxed in England; as the pandemic progresses attitudes and needs may well change.