Attitudes towards coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine and sources of information across diverse ethnic groups in the UK: a qualitative study from June to October 2020.

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.

Comparing public knowledge around value of hand and respiratory hygiene, vaccination, and pre- and post-national COVID-19 lockdown in England.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic spotlighted the importance of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. Existing literature focuses on healthcare professionals, whereas this article explores changes in public knowledge of IPC, where knowledge is comparably sparse. STUDY DESIGN: National surveys were conducted before (March 2020) and after (March 2021) the COVID-19 lockdown across England. METHODS: A telephone survey of 1676 adults (2021) and a face-to-face survey of 2202 adults (2020) across England were conducted. Key demographics were representative of the population. Weighted logistic regression with composite Wald P-values was used to investigate knowledge change from 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: Compared with 2020, significantly more respondents correctly stated that infections can spread by shaking hands (86% post vs 79% pre; P < .001) and that microbes are transferred through touching surfaces (90% vs 80%; P < .001). More knew that hand gel is effective at removing microbes if water and soap are unavailable (94% vs 92%; P = .015); that when you cough, you may infect other people near you in a room (90% vs 80%; P < .001). Knowledge that vaccination protects others from infection also increased (63% post vs 50% pre; P < .001). There was also significant increase in those confident in their answers. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of IPC measures was higher in 2021 than before the pandemic. Future public health hygiene campaigns should capitalise on this and emphasise that continuing hygiene behaviours, and vaccination can help prevent acquisition and illnesses with other non-COVID-19 infections, thus reducing the strain on the national health service.

Public views of and reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic in England: a qualitative study with diverse ethnicities.

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.

What the public in England know about antibiotic use and resistance in 2020: a face-to-face questionnaire survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe public attitudes and knowledge around antibiotic activity, resistance and use. DESIGN: Face-to-face household 18 question survey using computer-assisted data collection undertaken by Ipsos Market and Opinion Research International. SETTING: Randomly selected households across England, January-February 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 2022 adults (aged 15+,) including 521 black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) participants, and 406 aged 15-25 years olds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to questions about antibiotic activity, resistance and expectations for antibiotics and trust in healthcare professionals. Analyses were weighted to obtain estimates representative of the population with multivariable analysis undertaken for questions with five or more significant univariate variables. RESULTS: 84% stated they would be pleased if their general practitioner (GP) said they did not need antibiotics. Trust in GPs to make antibiotic decisions remains high (89%) and has increased for nurses (76%) and pharmacists (71%). Only 21% would challenge an antibiotic decision; this was significantly greater in BAME participants (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.89 to 3.35). 70% reported receiving advice when prescribed antibiotics. Belief in benefits of antibiotics for ear infections was very high (68%). Similar to 2017, 81% agreed that antibiotics work for bacterial, 28% cold and influenza viruses. 84% agreed antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) are increasing, only 50% agreed healthy people can carry ARB and 39% agreed there was nothing they personally could do about ARB. Social grade DE and BAME participants, and those with less education had significantly less understanding about antibiotics and resistance. CONCLUSIONS: As trust in healthcare practitioners is high, we need to continue antibiotic education and other interventions at GP surgeries and community pharmacies but highlight that most ear infections are not benefitted by antibiotics. Targeted interventions are needed for socioeconomic DE, BAME groups and previous antibiotic users. We need to explore if increasing perceived personal responsibility for preventing ARB reduces antibiotic use.

Empowering Patients to Self-Manage Common Infections: Qualitative Study Informing the Development of an Evidence-Based Patient Information Leaflet.

Common self-limiting infections can be self-managed by patients, potentially reducing consultations and unnecessary antibiotic use. This qualitative study informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) aimed to explore healthcare professionals' (HCPs) and patients' needs on provision of self-care and safety-netting advice for common infections. Twenty-seven patients and seven HCPs participated in semi-structured focus groups (FGs) and interviews. An information leaflet was iteratively developed and reviewed by participants in interviews and FGs, and an additional 5 HCPs, and 25 patients (identifying from minority ethnic groups) via online questionnaires. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, double-coded, and mapped to the TDF. Participants required information on symptom duration, safety netting, self-care, and antibiotics. Patients felt confident to self-care and were averse to consulting with HCPs unnecessarily but struggled to assess symptom severity. Patients reported seeking help for children or elderly dependents earlier. HCPs' concerns included patients' attitudes and a lack of available monitoring of advice given to patients. Participants believed community pharmacy should be the first place that patients seek advice on common infections. The patient information leaflet on common infections should be used in primary care and community pharmacy to support patients to self-manage symptoms and determine when further help is required.

Infectious Disease and Primary Care Research-What English General Practitioners Say They Need.

BACKGROUND: Infections are one of the most common reasons for patients attending primary care. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is perhaps one of the biggest threats to modern medicine; data show that 81% of antibiotics in the UK are prescribed in primary care. AIM: To identify where the perceived gaps in knowledge, skills, guidance and research around infections and antibiotic use lie from the general practitioner (GP) viewpoint. DESIGN AND SETTING: An online questionnaire survey. METHOD: The survey, based on questions asked of Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) members in 1999, and covering letter were electronically sent to GPs between May and August 2017 via various primary care dissemination routes. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-eight GPs responded. Suspected Infection in the elderly, recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI), surveillance of AMR in the community, leg ulcers, persistent cough and cellulitis all fell into the top six conditions ranked in order of importance that require further research, evidence and guidance. Acute sore throat, otitis media and sinusitis were of lower importance than in 1999. CONCLUSION: This survey will help the NHS, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and researchers to prioritise for the development of guidance and research for chronic conditions highlighted for which there is little evidence base for diagnostic and management guidelines in primary care. In contrast, 20 years of investment into research, guidance and resources for acute respiratory infections have successfully reduced these as priority areas for GPs.

Trends in Antibiotic Prescribing in Out-of-Hours Primary Care in England from January 2016 to June 2020 to Understand Behaviours during the First Wave of COVID-19.

We describe the trend of antibiotic prescribing in out-of-hours (OOH) general practices (GP) before and during England's first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We analysed practice-level prescribing records between January 2016 to June 2020 to report the trends for the total prescribing volume, prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics and key agents included in the national Quality Premium. We performed a time-series analysis to detect measurable changes in the prescribing volume associated with COVID-19. Before COVID-19, the total prescribing volume and the percentage of broad-spectrum antibiotics continued to decrease in-hours (IH). The prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics was higher in OOH (OOH: 10.1%, IH: 8.7%), but a consistent decrease in the trimethoprim-to-nitrofurantoin ratio was observed OOH. The OOH antibiotic prescribing volume diverged from the historical trend in March 2020 and started to decrease by 5088 items per month. Broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing started to increase in OOH and IH. In OOH, co-amoxiclav and doxycycline peaked in March to May in 2020, which was out of sync with seasonality peaks (Winter) in previous years. While this increase might be explained by the implementation of the national guideline to use co-amoxiclav and doxycycline to manage pneumonia in the community during COVID-19, further investigation is required to see whether the observed reduction in OOH antibiotic prescribing persists and how this reduction might influence antimicrobial resistance and patient outcomes.