Dale Weston

This pre-registered systematic review aimed to examine whether online support groups affect the health and wellbeing of individuals with a chronic condition, and what mechanisms may influence such effects. In September 2024, literature searches were conducted across electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science and Google Scholar), pre-publication websites (MedRxiv and PsyArXiv) and grey literature websites. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included if they explored the impact of online support groups on the health and wellbeing outcomes of individuals with a chronic condition. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included studies. In total 100 papers met the inclusion criteria with their findings presented in a thematic synthesis. Health and wellbeing outcomes were categorised as: physical health, mental health, quality of life, social wellbeing, behaviour and decision-making, and adjustment. Mechanisms reported in these studies related to exchanging support, sharing experiences, content expression, and social comparison. User and group characteristics were also explored. The included studies suggest that online support groups can have a positive impact on social wellbeing, behaviour, and adjustment, with inconclusive findings for physical health and quality of life. However, there is also the possibility of a negative effect on anxiety and distress, particularly when exposed to other group members’ difficult experiences. Research comparing different online group features, such as platforms, size, and duration is needed. In particular, future research should be experimental to overcome the limitations of some of the cross-sectional designs of the included studies. The review was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research in Emergency Preparedness and Response. Pre-registration ID: CRD42023399258

Effective and safe vaccines against COVID-19 are essential to achieve global control of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Using faith centres may offer a promising route for promoting higher vaccine uptake from certain minority ethnic groups known to be more likely to be vaccine hesitant. This cross-sectional study explored attendees’ perceptions, experiences of being offered, and receiving COVID-19 vaccination in a local mosque in Woking, Surrey, UK. About 199 attendees completed a brief questionnaire on experiences, views, motivations about attending the mosque and vaccination on site. The most common ethnic groups reported were White British (39.2%) and Pakistani (22.6%); 36.2% identified as Christian, 23.6% as Muslim, 5.5% as Hindu, and 17.1% had no religion. Genders was relatively equal with 90 men (45.2%) and 98 women (49.2%), and 35–44-year-olds represented the most common age group (28.1%). Views and experiences around receiving vaccinations at the mosque were predominantly positive. Primary reasons for getting vaccinated at the mosque included convenience, accessibility, positive aspects of the venue’s intercultural relations, and intentions to protect oneself against COVID-19, regardless of venue type. Negative views and experiences in regards to receiving the vaccination at the mosque were less common (7% expressed no intention of recommending the centre to others), and disliked aspects mostly referred to the travel distance and long waiting times. Offering COVID-19 vaccination in faith centres appears acceptable for different faith groups, ensuring convenient access for communities from all religions and ethnic backgrounds. What is already known on this topic Effective and safe vaccines against COVID-19 are essential to achieve global control of the coronavirus Using faith centres for providing access to health services may offer a promising route for promoting higher vaccine uptake from certain minority ethnic groups known to be more likely to be vaccine hesitant. What this study adds Convenience, accessibility, positive aspects of the venue, the importance of promoting intercultural relations, and getting vaccinated to protect oneself against COVID-19 appear to be major influencers relevant for the specific type of venue where the vaccine was offered, i.e. a mosque. Long travel distance and waiting times were barriers to recommending the centre to others. How this study might affect research, practice or policy Offering COVID-19 vaccination in faith centres appears acceptable for different faith groups. Vaccine uptake can be maximized by ensuring convenient access to the centre for communities from all religions and ethnic backgrounds. Future research should continue to explore COVID-19 vaccination behaviours and underlying beliefs in larger ethnic minority samples. Faith centres could provide an alternative location for preventative healthcare offers, such as vaccines, in local communities, therefore representing a promising approach to maximize public health impacts.

Introduction: The concept of “working from home” is extremely topical following the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, it is unsurprising that there has been an increased interest in collating research related to homeworking. This has been carried out by multiple reviews, all with slightly different research aims and methodologies. Collating the findings from the available reviews is therefore highly beneficial to establish the experience of homeworking to create recommendations for the future of home-based work. Methods: An umbrella review was carried out. In June 2022, literature searches were conducted across 4 electronic databases. Published reviews of literature that used a systematic process, were focused on working from home populations, and detailed factors that could be related to the personal experience of homeworking (eg, barriers, facilitators, advantages, disadvantages) were included. Results: A total of 1930 records were screened and 6 review articles were included. Results report on the following sections: working environment (eg, workplace design, space conditions), personal impact (eg, satisfaction, career impact), and health (eg, physical health, well-being) including a total of 19 themes. Mixed findings were apparent for nearly all included themes, highlighting the need to consider individual and contextual circumstances when researching working from home. Conclusions: This review establishes the importance of retaining flexibility while homeworking for employees, managers, and organizations. Essentially, a one-size-fits-all approach to working from home is impractical as individual circumstances limit application. Eight recommendations for the future of working from home are suggested.

The ability of the public to remain psychologically resilient in the face of public health emergencies and disasters (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) is a key factor in the effectiveness of a national response to such events. Community resilience and social capital are often perceived as beneficial and ensuring that a community is socially and psychologically resilient may aid emergency response and recovery. This review presents a synthesis of literature which answers the following research questions: How are community resilience and social capital quantified in research?; What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?A scoping review procedure was followed. Searches were run across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE, with search terms covering both community resilience and social capital, public health emergencies, and mental health. 26 papers met the inclusion criteria.The majority of retained papers originated in the USA, used a survey methodology to collect data, and involved a natural disaster. There was no common method for measuring community resilience or social capital. The association between community resilience and social capital with mental health was regarded as positive in most cases. However, we found that community resilience, and social capital, were initially negatively impacted by public health emergencies and enhanced by social group activities.Several key recommendations are proposed based on the outcomes from the review, which include: the need for a standardised and validated approach to measuring both community resilience and social capital; that there should be enhanced effort to improve preparedness to public health emergencies in communities by gauging current levels of community resilience and social capital; that community resilience and social capital should be bolstered if areas are at risk of disasters or public health emergencies; the need to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to communities with high resilience in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster; the importance of conducting robust evaluation of community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aim: Rapid intervention development, implementation and evaluation is required for emergency public health contexts, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic. A novel Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework has been developed to assist this endeavour in future public health emergencies. This scoping review aimed to map available behavioural science resources that can be used to develop and evaluate public health guidance, messaging, and interventions in emergency contexts onto components of ACE: rapid development and implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and inclusion of evaluation. Methods: A scoping review methodology was used. Searches were run on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, and Google, with search terms covering emergency response and behavioural science. Papers published since 2014 and which discussed a framework or guidance for using behavioural science in response to a public health emergency, were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: Seventeen records were included in the synthesis. The records covered a range of emergency contexts, the most frequent of which were COVID-19 (n=7) and non-specific emergencies (n=4). One record evaluated existing tools, six proposed new tools, and ten described existing tools. Commonly used tools included the Behavioural Change Wheel, Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model (COM-B model) and social identity theory. Three records discuss co-production with the target audience and consideration of diverse populations. Four records incorporate rapid testing, evaluation, or validation methods. Six records state that their tool is designed to be implemented rapidly. No records cover all components of ACE. Conclusion: We recommend that future research explores how to create guidance involving rapid implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom-heard voices from diverse communities, and evaluation.

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.

Climate change requires urgent action; however, it can be challenging to identify individual-level behaviours that should be prioritised for maximum impact. The study aimed to prioritise climate change mitigation behaviours according to their impacts on climate change and public health, and to identify associated barriers and facilitators—exploring the impact of observed behaviour shifts associated with COVID-19 in the UK. A three-round Delphi study and expert workshop were conducted: An expert panel rated mitigation behaviours impacted by COVID-19 in relation to their importance regarding health impacts and climate change mitigation using a five-point Likert scale. Consensus on the importance of target behaviours was determined by interquartile ranges. In total, seven target behaviours were prioritised: installing double/triple glazing; installing cavity wall insulation; installing solid wall insulation; moving away from meat/emission heavy diets; reducing the number of cars per household; walking shorter journeys; and reducing day/weekend leisure car journeys. Barriers related to the costs associated with performing behaviours and a lack of complementary policy-regulated subsidies. The target behaviours are consistent with recommendations from previous research. To ensure public uptake, interventions should address behavioural facilitators and barriers, dovetail climate change mitigation with health co-benefits and account for the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on these behaviours.

Introduction: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies, such as intravenous-to-oral switch (IVOS), promote optimal antimicrobial use, contributing to safer and more effective patient care and tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Aim: This study aimed to achieve nationwide multidisciplinary expert consensus on antimicrobial IVOS criteria for timely switch in hospitalised adult patients and to design an IVOS decision aid to operationalise agreed IVOS criteria in the hospital setting. Method: A four-step Delphi process was chosen to achieve expert consensus on IVOS criteria and decision aid; it included (Step One) Pilot/1st round questionnaire, (Step Two) Virtual meeting, (Step Three) 2nd round questionnaire and (Step 4) Workshop. This study follows the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument checklist. Results: The Step One questionnaire of 42 IVOS criteria had 24 respondents, 15 of whom participated in Step Two, in which 37 criteria were accepted for the next step. Step Three had 242 respondents (England n = 195, Northern Ireland n = 18, Scotland n = 18, Wales n = 11); 27 criteria were accepted. Step Four had 48 survey respondents and 33 workshop participants; consensus was achieved for 24 criteria and comments were received on a proposed IVOS decision aid. Research recommendations include the use of evidence-based standardised IVOS criteria. Discussion and Conclusion: This study achieved nationwide expert consensus on antimicrobial IVOS criteria for timely switch in the hospitalised adult population. For criteria operationalisation, an IVOS decision aid was developed. Further research is required to provide clinical validation of the consensus IVOS criteria and to expand this work into the paediatric and international settings.

Introduction: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies, such as intravenous-to-oral switch (IVOS), promote optimal antimicrobial use, contributing to safer and more effective patient care and tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Aim: This study aimed to achieve nationwide multidisciplinary expert consensus on antimicrobial IVOS criteria for timely switch in hospitalised adult patients and to design an IVOS decision aid to operationalise agreed IVOS criteria in the hospital setting. Method: A 4-step Delphi process was chosen to achieve expert consensus on IVOS criteria and decision aid; it included Step One) Pilot/1 ^st round questionnaire, Step Two) Virtual meeting, Step Three) 2 ^nd round questionnaire and Step 4) Workshop. This study follows the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument checklist. Results: Step One questionnaire of 42 IVOS criteria had 24 respondents, 15 of whom participated in Step Two, where 37 criteria were accepted for the next step. Step Three had 242 respondents (England n=195, Northern Ireland n=18, Scotland n=18, Wales n=11); 27 criteria were accepted. Step Four had 48 survey respondents and 33 workshop participants; where consensus was achieved for 24 criteria and comments received on a proposed IVOS decision aid. Research recommendations include the use of evidence-based standardised IVOS criteria. Discussion and Conclusion: This study achieved nationwide expert consensus on antimicrobial IVOS criteria for timely switch in the hospitalised adult population. For criteria operationalisation, an IVOS decision aid was developed. Further research is required to provide clinical validation of the consensus IVOS criteria and to expand this work into the paediatric and international settings.

During the COVID‐19 pandemic, the United Kingdom implemented physical distancing measures to minimize viral transmission, which may have adversely impacted health and wellbeing. Evidence suggests that social support may be key to mitigating against adverse health impacts of such measures, particularly when such social support is identity‐based. In this longitudinal study, we examined the role of social identity and perceived social support in mental and physical health outcomes during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Participants completed a survey at 4 time points during the first year of the pandemic: May/June 2020 (T1; N = 443); September/October 2020 (T2; N = 235); December 2020/January 2021 (T3; N = 243); and April 2021 (T4; N = 206). Results showed that at each time point, social support was predicted by identification with multiple groups before COVID‐19, identity continuity, and identification with communities. Higher identity continuity and identification with communities both predicted greater mental and physical health at the same time point, mediated by perceived social support. Interestingly, higher identity continuity and identification with communities predicted higher social support at the same time point, which in turn predicted worse mental and physical health outcomes at the subsequent time point. Findings are discussed in relation to the context of the first year of the pandemic and the changing nature of societal restrictions across the four survey time points.