Covid-19 vaccine roll-out in England: A qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The UK was the first country to launch a national pandemic COVID-19 vaccination programme, which was implemented swiftly despite significant vaccine supply constraints. The delivery strategy used a combination of mass vaccination sites operated by NHS secondary care providers and local sites led by Primary Care Networks, and local pharmacies. Despite nation-wide rollout, persistent gaps in coverage continued to affect particular populations, including ethnic minority and marginalised social groups. AIM: The study examined sub-national immunisation commissioners and providers' perspectives on how the COVID-19 vaccine programme was operationalised, and how delivery strategies impacted inequalities in access to vaccination services and uptake. The study aimed to inform national programme implementation, sustainability and future pandemic preparedness. METHODS: Qualitative research was conducted in eight local NHS areas in 4 regions of England. Semi-structured interviews were performed with 82 sub-national NHS and public health vaccine providers and commissioners. RESULTS: England's COVID-19 vaccination programme was described as top down, centralised and highly political. The programme gradually morphed from a predominantly mass vaccination strategy into more locally driven and tailored approaches able to respond more effectively to inequalities in uptake. Over time more flexibility was introduced, as providers adapted services by "working around" the national systems for vaccine supply and appointment booking. The constant change faced by providers and commissioners was mitigated by high staff motivation and resilience, local collaboration and pragmatism. Opportunities for efficient implementation were missed because priority was given to achieving national performance targets at the expense of a more flexible sub-national tailored delivery. CONCLUSION: Pandemic vaccination delivery models need to be adapted for underserved and hesitant groups, working in collaboration with local actors. Learnings from the initial COVID-19 vaccine roll-out in England and elsewhere is important to inform future pandemic responses, in tailoring strategies to local communities, and improve large-scale vaccination programmes.

Adapting SARS-CoV-2 vaccination delivery in England to population needs: a thematic analysis of providers and commissioner's perceptions.

BACKGROUND: A national SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programme was implemented in England from 8th December 2020, adopting a series of local level service delivery models to maximise rollout. The evidence base informing service design programme at inception was limited. We examined the real-world implementation of the programme through an assessment of sub-national providers' and commissioners' perspectives on the service delivery models used, to strengthen evidence on the acceptability, effectiveness and efficiency of the service delivery approaches used for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in England or elsewhere. METHODS: Qualitative, cross-sectional analysis based on semi-structured interviews conducted with 87 stakeholders working in SARS-CoV-2 vaccination delivery across four regions in England. Localities were selected according to geography and population socio-economic status. Participants were purposively sampled from health service providers, commissioners and other relevant bodies. Interviews were conducted between February and October 2021, and transcripts were thematically analysed using inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Various service delivery models were implemented over the course of the programme, beginning with hospital hubs and mass vaccination sites, before expanding to incorporate primary care-led services, mobile and other outreach services. Each had advantages and drawbacks but primary care-led models, and to some extent pharmacies, were perceived to offer a better combination of efficiency and community reach for equitable delivery. Common factors for success included availability of a motivated workforce, predictability in vaccine supply chains and strong community engagement. However, interviewees noted a lack of coordination between service providers in the vaccination programme, linked to differing financial incentives and fragmentated information systems, among other factors. CONCLUSION: A range of delivery models are needed to enable vaccine rollout at pace and scale, and to mitigate effects on routine care provision. However, primary care-led services offer a tried-and-trusted framework for vaccine delivery at scale and pace and should be central to planning for future pandemic responses. Mass vaccination sites can offer delivery at scale but may exacerbate inequalities in vaccination coverage and are unlikely to offer value for money. Policymakers in England should prioritise measures to improve collaboration between service providers, including better alignment of IT systems.

A systematic review of communication interventions for countering vaccine misinformation.

BACKGROUND: Misinformation and disinformation around vaccines has grown in recent years, exacerbated during the Covid-19 pandemic. Effective strategies for countering vaccine misinformation and disinformation are crucial for tackling vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a systematic review to identify and describe communications-based strategies used to prevent and ameliorate the effect of mis- and dis-information on people's attitudes and behaviours surrounding vaccination (objective 1) and examined their effectiveness (objective 2). METHODS: We searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and MedRxiv in March 2021. The search strategy was built around three themes(1) communications and media; (2) misinformation; and (3) vaccines. For trials addressing objective 2, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in randomized trials tool (RoB2). RESULTS: Of 2000 identified records, 34 eligible studies addressed objective 1, 29 of which also addressed objective 2 (25 RCTs and 4 before-and-after studies). Nine 'intervention approaches' were identified; most focused on content of the intervention or message (debunking/correctional, informational, use of disease images or other 'scare tactics', use of humour, message intensity, inclusion of misinformation warnings, and communicating weight of evidence), while two focused on delivery of the intervention or message (timing and source). Some strategies, such as scare tactics, appear to be ineffective and may increase misinformation endorsement. Communicating with certainty, rather than acknowledging uncertainty around vaccine efficacy or risks, was also found to backfire. Promising approaches include communicating the weight-of-evidence and scientific consensus around vaccines and related myths, using humour and incorporating warnings about encountering misinformation. Trying to debunk misinformation, informational approaches, and communicating uncertainty had mixed results. CONCLUSION: This review identifies some promising communication strategies for addressing vaccine misinformation. Interventions should be further evaluated by measuring effects on vaccine uptake, rather than distal outcomes such as knowledge and attitudes, in quasi-experimental and real-life contexts.

"We've all got the virus inside us now": Disaggregating public health relations and responsibilities for health protection in pandemic London.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted ethnic minorities in the global north, evidenced by higher rates of transmission, morbidity, and mortality relative to population sizes. Orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods in London had extremely high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rates, reflecting patterns in Israel and the US. The aim of this paper is to examine how responsibilities over health protection are conveyed, and to what extent responsibility is sought by, and shared between, state services, and 'community' stakeholders or representative groups, and families in public health emergencies. The study investigates how public health and statutory services stakeholders, Orthodox Jewish communal custodians and households sought to enact health protection in London during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020-March 2021). Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted across these cohorts. Findings demonstrate that institutional relations - both their formation and at times fragmentation - were directly shaped by issues surrounding COVID-19 control measures. Exchanges around protective interventions (whether control measures, contact tracing technologies, or vaccines) reveal diverse and diverging attributions of responsibility and authority. The paper develops a framework of public health relations to understand negotiations between statutory services and minority groups over responsiveness and accountability in health protection. Disaggregating public health relations can help social scientists to critique who and what characterises institutional relationships with minority groups, and what ideas of responsibility and responsiveness are projected by differently-positioned stakeholders in health protection.

Women's views and experiences of accessing pertussis vaccination in pregnancy and infant vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-methods study in the UK.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 changed access to healthcare, including vaccinations, in the United Kingdom (UK). This study explored UK women's experiences of accessing pertussis vaccination during pregnancy and infant vaccinations during COVID-19. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was completed, between 3rd August-11th October 2020, by 1404 women aged 16+ years who were pregnant at some point after the first UK lockdown from March 23rd, 2020. Ten follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted. RESULTS: Most women surveyed were pregnant (65.7%) and a third postnatal (34.3%). Almost all women (95.6%) were aware that pertussis vaccination is recommended in pregnancy. Most pregnant (72.1%) and postnatal women (84.0%) had received pertussis vaccination; however, access issues were reported. Over a third (39.6%) of women had a pregnancy vaccination appointment changed. COVID-19 made it physically difficult to access pregnancy vaccinations for one fifth (21.5%) of women and physically difficult to access infant vaccinations for almost half of women (45.8%). Nearly half of women (45.2%) reported feeling less safe attending pregnancy vaccinations and over three quarters (76.3%) less safe attending infant vaccinations due to COVID-19. The majority (94.2%) felt it was important to get their baby vaccinated during COVID-19. Pregnant women from ethnic-minorities and lower-income households were less likely to have been vaccinated. Minority-ethnicity women were more likely to report access problems and feeling less safe attending vaccinations for both themselves and their babies. Qualitative analysis found women experienced difficulties accessing antenatal care and relied on knowledge from previous pregnancies to access vaccines in pregnancy. CONCLUSION: During the ongoing and future pandemics, healthcare services should prioritise equitable access to routine vaccinations, including tailoring services for ethnic-minority families who experience greater barriers to vaccination.

Tailoring immunisation programmes in a time of SARS-CoV-2: What can be learnt by comparing the findings of childhood and COVID-19 vaccine evaluation studies in an underserved population?

Objectives: A WHO Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP) evaluation was conducted in 2014-16 to investigate suboptimal childhood vaccination coverage in the north London Orthodox Jewish community. In 2021-22 a qualitative evaluation of the COVID-19 vaccine programme (CVP) was conducted in the same setting. This paper examines whether the issues identified by the TIP affected the CVP and what differences emerged between these two vaccine programme evaluations. Study design: Qualitative study. Methods: The CVP evaluation involved conducting 28 semi-structured interviews with public health professionals, Orthodox Jewish welfare and religious representatives, and household members in February-May 2021. The key considerations arising from the thematic analysis of this data was then compared systematically with the overarching findings from the TIP study. Results: The issues identified in the TIP study diverged and converged with results from the CVP evaluation: i) participants did not express concerns of unmet CVP information needs; ii) the social value of COVID-19 vaccines was influenced by international travel requirements; iii) in contrast to commissioning constraints noted to have limited flexible delivery of childhood immunisations in the TIP evaluation, the CVP was characterised by a flexible commissioning and delivery model. This model was facilitated by significant government investment as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Conclusions: The comparative analysis indicates that flexible vaccine commissioning and fit for purpose public health investment can influence how documented knowledge is translated into action. Implications are raised for how routine vaccination services are equipped to serve the needs of minority populations with historically suboptimal coverage levels.

Development of a multicomponent intervention to increase parental vaccine confidence and young people's access to the universal HPV vaccination programme in England: protocol for a co-design study.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent infection with HPV can result in cancers affecting men and, especially, women. Lower uptake exists by area and different population groups. Increasing parental confidence about, and adolescent access to, the universal HPV vaccination programme may help reduce inequalities in uptake. However, the evidence-base for interventions to address uptake for schools-based HPV vaccination programmes is currently lacking. This study protocol outlines how a multicomponent intervention to address this evidence gap will be codesigned with parents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The proposed research will be undertaken in localities covered by two immunisation teams in London and the south-west of England. The 'person-based approach' to intervention development will be followed. In the first phase, an exploratory qualitative study will be undertaken with key stakeholders (n=8) and parents (n=40) who did not provide consent for their adolescent child to be vaccinated. During the interviews, parents' views on ways to improve parental confidence about, and adolescents' access to, HPV vaccination will be sought. The findings will be used to inform the co-design of a preliminary plan for a targeted, multicomponent intervention. In the second phase, at least two parent working groups (n=8) will be convened and will work with creative designers to co-design communication materials aimed at increasing parents' confidence in vaccination. At least two workshops with each parent group will be organised to obtain feedback on the intervention plan and communication materials to ensure they are fit for purpose. These findings will inform a protocol for a future study to test the effectiveness of the intervention at increasing HPV vaccination uptake. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The National Health Services Research Ethics Service and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Observational / Interventions Research Ethics Committee provided approvals for the study (reference 22/SW/0003 & 26902, respectively). We will work with parent advisory groups to inform our dissemination strategy and co-present our findings (eg, at community events or through social media). We will disseminate our findings with academics and healthcare professionals through webinars and academic conferences, as well as peer-reviewed publications.

Tackling barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in London: a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first vaccine was administered in December 2020 in England. However, vaccination uptake has historically been lower in London than in other English regions. METHODS: Mixed-methods: This comprised an analysis of cumulative percentage uptake across London between 8 December 2020 and 6 June 2021 by vaccine priority cohorts and ethnicity. We also undertook thematic analyses of uptake barriers, interventions to tackle these and key learning from a qualitative survey of 27 London local authority representatives, vaccine plans from London's five Integrated Care Systems and interviews with 38 London system representatives. RESULTS: Vaccine uptake was lower in Black ethnic (57-65% uptake) compared with the White British group (90% uptake). Trust was a critical issue, including mistrust in the vaccine itself and in authorities administering or promoting it. The balance between putative costs and benefits of vaccination created uptake barriers for zero-hour and shift workers. Intensive, targeted and 'hyper-local' initiatives, which sustained community relationships and were not constrained by administrative boundaries, helped tackle these barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The success of the national vaccination programme depended on conceding local autonomy, investing in responsive and long-term partnerships to engender trust through in-depth understanding of communities' beliefs.

Localising vaccination services: Qualitative insights on public health and minority group collaborations to co-deliver coronavirus vaccines.

Ethnic and religious minorities have been disproportionately affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and are less likely to accept coronavirus vaccinations. Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish neighbourhoods in England experienced high incidences of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020-21 and measles outbreaks (2018-19) due to suboptimal childhood vaccination coverage. The objective of our study was to explore how the coronavirus vaccination programme (CVP) was co-delivered between public health services and an Orthodox Jewish health organisation. Methods included 28 semi-structured interviews conducted virtually with public health professionals, community welfare and religious representatives, and household members. We examined CVP delivery from the perspectives of those involved in organising services and vaccine beneficiaries. Interview data was contextualised within debates of the CVP in Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish print and social media. Thematic analysis generated five considerations: i) Prior immunisation-related collaboration with public health services carved a role for Jewish health organisations to host and promote coronavirus vaccination sessions, distribute appointments, and administer vaccines ii) Public health services maintained responsibility for training, logistics, and maintaining vaccination records; iii) The localised approach to service delivery promoted vaccination in a minority with historically suboptimal levels of coverage; iv) Co-delivery promoted trust in the CVP, though a minority of participants maintained concerns around safety; v) Provision of CVP information and stakeholders' response to situated (context-specific) challenges and concerns. Drawing on this example of CVP co-delivery, we propose that a localised approach to delivering immunisation programmes could address service provision gaps in ways that involve trusted community organisations. Localisation of vaccination services can include communication or implementation strategies, but both approaches involve consideration of investment, engagement and coordination, which are not cost-neutral. Localising vaccination services in collaboration with welfare groups raises opportunities for the on-going CVP and other immunisation programmes, and constitutes an opportunity for ethnic and religious minorities to collaborate in safeguarding community health.

COVID-19 vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours among health and social care workers in the UK: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The UK began delivering its COVID-19 vaccination programme on 8 December 2020, with health and social care workers (H&SCWs) given high priority for vaccination. Despite well-documented occupational exposure risks, however, there is evidence of lower uptake among some H&SCW groups. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach-involving an online cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews-to gain insight into COVID-19 vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours amongst H&SCWs in the UK by socio-demographic and employment variables. 1917 people were surveyed- 1656 healthcare workers (HCWs) and 261 social care workers (SCWs). Twenty participants were interviewed. FINDINGS: Workplace factors contributed to vaccination access and uptake. SCWs were more likely to not be offered COVID-19 vaccination than HCWs (OR:1.453, 95%CI: 1.244-1.696). SCWs specifically reported uncertainties around how to access COVID-19 vaccination. Participants who indicated stronger agreement with the statement 'I would recommend my organisation as a place to work' were more likely to have been offered COVID-19 vaccination (OR:1.285, 95%CI: 1.056-1.563). Those who agreed more strongly with the statement 'I feel/felt under pressure from my employer to get a COVID-19 vaccine' were more likely to have declined vaccination (OR:1.751, 95%CI: 1.271-2.413). Interviewees that experienced employer pressure to get vaccinated felt this exacerbated their vaccine concerns and increased distrust. In comparison to White British and White Irish participants, Black African and Mixed Black African participants were more likely to not be offered (OR:2.011, 95%CI: 1.026-3.943) and more likely to have declined COVID-19 vaccination (OR:5.550, 95%CI: 2.294-13.428). Reasons for declining vaccination among Black African participants included distrust in COVID-19 vaccination, healthcare providers, and policymakers. CONCLUSION: H&SCW employers are in a pivotal position to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination access, by ensuring staff are aware of how to get vaccinated and promoting a workplace environment in which vaccination decisions are informed and voluntary.

National health governance, science and the media: drivers of COVID-19 responses in Germany, Sweden and the UK in 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis in which governments had to act in a situation of rapid change and substantial uncertainty. The governments of Germany, Sweden and the UK have taken different paths allowing learning for future pandemic preparedness. To help inform discussions on preparedness, inspired by resilience frameworks, this paper reviews governance structures, and the role of science and the media in the COVID-19 response of Germany, Sweden and the UK in 2020. We mapped legitimacy, interdependence, knowledge generation and the capacity to deal with uncertainty.Our analysis revealed stark differences which were linked to pre-existing governing structures, the traditional role of academia, experience of crisis management and the communication of uncertainty-all of which impacted on how much people trusted their government. Germany leveraged diversity and inclusiveness, a 'patchwork quilt', for which it was heavily criticised during the second wave. The Swedish approach avoided plurality and largely excluded academia, while in the UK's academia played an important role in knowledge generation and in forcing the government to review its strategies. However, the vivant debate left the public with confusing and rapidly changing public health messages. Uncertainty and the lack of evidence on how best to manage the COVID-19 pandemic-the main feature during the first wave-was only communicated explicitly in Germany. All country governments lost trust of their populations during the epidemic due to a mix of communication and transparency failures, and increased questioning of government legitimacy and technical capacity by the public.

Migration and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease in Europe: a systematic review.

Migrant populations are one of several underimmunised groups in the EU or European Economic Area (EU/EEA), yet little is known about their involvement in outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. This information is vital to develop targeted strategies to improve the health of diverse migrant communities. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42019157473; Jan 1, 2000, to May 22, 2020) adhering to PRISMA guidelines, to identify studies on vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, hepatitis A, varicella, Neisseria meningitidis, and Haemophilus influenzae) involving migrants residing in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. We identified 45 studies, reporting on 47 distinct vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks across 13 countries. Most reported outbreaks involving migrants were of measles (n=24; 6496 cases), followed by varicella (n=11; 505 cases), hepatitis A (n=7; 1356 cases), rubella (n=3; 487 cases), and mumps (n=2; 293 cases). 19 (40%) outbreaks, predominantly varicella and measles, were reported in temporary refugee camps or shelters. Of 11 varicella outbreaks, nine (82%) were associated with adult migrants. Half of measles outbreaks (n=11) were associated with migrants from eastern European countries. In conclusion, migrants are involved in vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks in Europe, with adult and child refugees residing in shelters or temporary camps at particular risk, alongside specific nationality groups. Vulnerability varies by disease, setting, and demographics, highlighting the importance of tailoring catch-up vaccination interventions to specific groups in order to meet regional and global vaccination targets as recommended by the new Immunisation Agenda 2030 framework for action. A better understanding of vaccine access and intent in migrant groups and a greater focus on co-designing interventions is urgently needed, with direct implications for COVID-19 vaccine delivery.

Delivering routine immunisations in London during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons for future vaccine delivery. A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: General practices in England have continued to care for patients throughout the COVID-19 pandemic by instigating major changes to service delivery. Immunisations have continued, although the number of vaccines delivered initially dropped in April 2020. AIM: To evaluate how COVID-19 impacted the delivery of immunisations in London and identify innovative practices to inform future delivery, including for COVID-19 vaccines. DESIGN & SETTING: A mixed-methods study of immunisation delivery in London, UK. METHOD: An online survey of London general practices was undertaken in May 2020 to produce a descriptive analysis of childhood immunisation delivery and identify innovative delivery models. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between August and November 2020 to explore innovative immunisation models, which were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Sixty-eight per cent (n = 830) of London practices completed the survey and 97% reported having continued childhood immunisation delivery. Common delivery adaptations included spaced-out appointments, calling parents beforehand, and having only one parent attend. Forty-three practices were identified as having innovative models, such as delivering immunisations outside practice buildings or offering drive-through services. The thematic analysis of 14 semi-structured interviews found that, alongside adaptations to immunisation delivery within practices, existing local networks collaborated to establish new immunisation delivery models. Local population characteristics affected delivery and provide insights for large-scale vaccine deployment. CONCLUSION: Immunisations continued during 2020 with practices adapting existing services. New delivery models were developed by building on existing local knowledge, experiences, and networks. Immunisation delivery during the pandemic, including for COVID-19 vaccines, should be tailored to local population needs by building on primary care immunisation expertise.

Strategies and action points to ensure equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations: A national qualitative interview study to explore the views of undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees.

INTRODUCTION: Early evidence confirms lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake in established ethnic minority populations, yet there has been little focus on understanding vaccine hesitancy and barriers to vaccination in migrants. Growing populations of precarious migrants (including undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and refugees) in the UK and Europe are considered to be under-immunised groups and may be excluded from health systems, yet little is known about their views on COVID-19 vaccines specifically, which are essential to identify key solutions and action points to strengthen vaccine roll-out. METHODS: We did an in-depth semi-structured qualitative interview study of recently arrived migrants (foreign-born, >18 years old; <10 years in the UK) to the UK with precarious immigration status between September 2020 and March 2021, seeking their input into strategies to strengthen COVID-19 vaccine delivery and uptake. We used the 'Three Cs' model (confidence, complacency and convenience) to explore COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, barriers and access. Data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. Data collection continued until data saturation was reached, and no novel concepts were arising. The study was approved by the University of London ethics committee (REC 2020.00630). RESULTS: We approached 20 migrant support groups nationwide, recruiting 32 migrants (mean age 37.1 years; 21 [66%] female; mean time in the UK 5.6 years [SD 3.7 years]), including refugees (n = 3), asylum seekers (n = 19), undocumented migrants (n = 8) and migrants with limited leave to remain (n = 2) from 15 different countries (5 WHO regions). 23 (72%) of 32 migrants reported being hesitant about accepting a COVID-19 vaccine and two (6%) would definitely not accept a vaccine. Participants communicated concerns over vaccine content, side-effects, lack of accessible information in an appropriate language, lack of trust in the health system and low perceived need. A range of barriers to accessing the COVID-19 vaccine were reported and concerns expressed that their communities would be excluded from or de-prioritised in the roll-out. Undocumented migrants described fears over being charged and facing immigration checks if they present for a vaccine. Participants (n = 10) interviewed after recent government announcements that COVID-19 vaccines can be accessed without facing immigration checks remained unaware of this. Participants stated that convenience of access would be a key factor in their decision around whether to accept a vaccine and proposed alternative access points to primary care services (for example, walk-in centres in trusted places such as foodbanks, community centres and charities), alongside promoting registration with primary care for all, and working closely with communities to produce accessible information on COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Precarious migrants may be hesitant about accepting a COVID-19 vaccine and face multiple and unique barriers to access, requiring simple but innovative solutions to ensure equitable access and uptake. Vaccine hesitancy and low awareness around entitlement and relevant access points could be easily addressed with clear, accessible, and tailored information campaigns, co-produced and delivered by trusted sources within marginalised migrant communities. These findings have immediate relevance to the COVID-19 vaccination initiatives in the UK and in other European and high-income countries with diverse migrant populations. FUNDING: NIHR.

Parents' and guardians' views and experiences of accessing routine childhood vaccinations during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: A mixed methods study in England.

OBJECTIVE: To explore parents' and guardians' views and experiences of accessing National Health Service (NHS) general practices for routine childhood vaccinations during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in England. DESIGN: Mixed methods approach involving an online cross-sectional survey (conducted between 19th April and 11th May 2020) and semi-structured telephone interviews (conducted between 27th April and 27th May 2020). PARTICIPANTS: 1252 parents and guardians (aged 16+ years) who reported living in England with a child aged 18 months or under completed the survey. Nineteen survey respondents took part in follow-up interviews. RESULTS: The majority of survey respondents (85.7%) considered it important for their children to receive routine vaccinations on schedule during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, several barriers to vaccination were identified. These included a lack of clarity around whether vaccination services were operating as usual, particularly amongst respondents from lower income households and those self-reporting as Black, Asian, Chinese, Mixed or Other ethnicity; difficulties in organising vaccination appointments; and fears around contracting COVID-19 while attending general practice. Concerns about catching COVID-19 while accessing general practice were weighed against concerns about children acquiring a vaccine-preventable disease if they did not receive scheduled routine childhood vaccinations. Many parents and guardians felt their child's risk of acquiring a vaccine-preventable disease was low as the implementation of stringent physical distancing measures (from March 23rd 2020) meant they were not mixing with others. CONCLUSION: To promote routine childhood vaccination uptake during the current COVID-19 outbreak, further waves of COVID-19 infection, and future pandemics, prompt and sustained national and general practice level communication is needed to raise awareness of vaccination service continuation and the importance of timely vaccination, and invitation-reminder systems for vaccination need to be maintained. To allay concerns about the safety of accessing general practice, practices should communicate the measures being implemented to prevent COVID-19 transmission.

Parents' and guardians' views on the acceptability of a future COVID-19 vaccine: A multi-methods study in England.

BACKGROUND: The availability of a COVID-19 vaccine has been heralded as key to controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 vaccination programme success will rely on public willingness to be vaccinated. METHODS: We used a multi-methods approach - involving an online cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews - to investigate parents' and guardians' views on the acceptability of a future COVID-19 vaccine. 1252 parents and guardians (aged 16 + years) who reported living in England with a child aged 18 months or under completed the survey. Nineteen survey participants were interviewed. FINDINGS: Most survey participants reported they would likely accept a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves (Definitely 55.8%; Unsure but leaning towards yes 34.3%) and their child/children (Definitely 48.2%; Unsure but leaning towards yes 40.9%). Less than 4% of survey participants reported that they would definitely not accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Survey participants were more likely to accept a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves than their child/children. Participants that self-reported as Black, Asian, Chinese, Mixed or Other ethnicity were almost 3 times more likely to reject a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves and their children than White British, White Irish and White Other participants. Survey participants from lower-income households were also more likely to reject a COVID-19 vaccine. In open-text survey responses and interviews, self-protection from COVID-19 was reported as the main reason for vaccine acceptance. Common concerns identified in open-text responses and interviews were around COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness, mostly prompted by the newness and rapid development of the vaccine. CONCLUSION: Information on how COVID-19 vaccines are developed and tested, including their safety and efficacy, must be communicated clearly to the public. To prevent inequalities in uptake, it is crucial to understand and address factors that may affect COVID-19 vaccine acceptability in ethnic minority and lower-income groups who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19.