Evaluating the relationship between moral values and vaccine hesitancy in Great Britain during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey.

RATIONAL/OBJECTIVE: Mandating vaccinations can harm public trust, and informational interventions can backfire. An alternative approach could align pro-vaccination messages with the automatic moral values and intuitions that vaccine-hesitant people endorse. The current study evaluates the relationships between six automatic moral intuitions and vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was designed using Qualtrics (2020) software and conducted online from April 6th to April 13, 2021. A representative sample of 1201 people living in Great Britain took part, of which 954 (514 female) passed the attention check items. Participants responded to items about their automatic moral intuitions, vaccination behaviours or intentions related to COVID-19 vaccines, and general vaccine hesitancy. Regressions (with and without adjustments for age, gender, and ethnicity) were performed assessing the association between endorsement of each automatic intuition and self-reported uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, and between each automatic intuition and general vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: People who endorsed the authority foundation and those who more strongly endorsed the liberty foundation tended to be more vaccine hesitant. This pattern generalises across people's self-reported uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and people's hesitancy towards vaccines in general. To a lesser extent people who expressed less need for care and a greater need for sanctity also displayed greater hesitancy towards vaccines in general. The results were consistent across the adjusted and non-adjusted analyses. Age and ethnicity significantly contributed to some models but gender did not. CONCLUSION: Four automatic moral intuitions (authority, liberty, care, and sanctity) were significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy. Foundation-aligned messages could be developed to motivate those people who may otherwise refuse vaccines, e.g., messages that strongly promote liberty or that de-emphasize authority voices. This suggestion moves away from mandates and promotes the inclusion of a more diverse range of voices in pro-vaccination campaigns.

A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial of Priming Interventions to Increase Hand Hygiene at Ward Entrances

Background Research conducted in the United States suggests that two primes (citrus smells and pictures of a person's eyes) can increase hand gel dispenser use on the day they are introduced in hospital. The current study, conducted at a hospital in the United Kingdom, evaluated the effectiveness of these primes, both in isolation and in combination, at the entry way to four separate wards, over a longer duration than the previous work. Methods A crossover randomized controlled trial was conducted. Four wards were allocated for 6 weeks of observation to each of four conditions, including “control,” “olfactory,” “visual,” or “both” (i.e., “olfactory” and “visual” combined). It was hypothesized that hand hygiene compliance would be greater in all priming conditions relative to the control condition. The primary outcome was whether people used the gel dispenser when they entered the wards. After the trial, a follow up survey of staff at the same hospital assessed the barriers to, and facilitators of, hand hygiene compliance. The trial data were analyzed using regression techniques and the survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results The total number of individuals observed in the trial was 9,811 (female = 61%), with similar numbers across conditions, including “control” N = 2,582, “olfactory” N = 2,700, “visual” N = 2,488, and “both” N = 2,141. None of the priming conditions consistently increased hand hygiene. The lowest percentage compliance was observed in the “both” condition (7.8%), and the highest was observed in the “visual” condition (12.7%). The survey was completed by 97 staff (female = 81%). “Environmental resources” and “social influences” were the greatest barriers to staff cleaning their hands. Conclusions Taken together, the current findings suggest that the olfactory and visual priming interventions investigated do not influence hand hygiene consistently. To increase the likelihood of such interventions succeeding, future research should focus on prospectively determined mechanisms of action.

A mixed-methods study describing behavioral factors that influenced general practitioners' experiences using triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, general practices were asked to expand triage and to reduce unnecessary face-to-face contact by prioritizing other consultation modes, e.g., online messaging, video, or telephone. The current study explores the potential barriers and facilitators general practitioners experienced to expanding triage systems and their attitudes towards triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A mixed-method study design was used in which a quantitative online survey was conducted along with qualitative interviews to gain a more nuanced appreciation for practitioners' experiences in the United Kingdom. The survey items were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework so they would capture 14 behavioral factors that may influence whether practitioners use triage systems. Items were responded to using seven-point Likert scales. A median score was calculated for each item. The responses of participants identifying as part-owners and non-owners (i.e., "partner" vs. "non-partner" practitioners) were compared. The semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely and examined using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 204 participants (66% Female). Most participants (83%) reported triaging patients. The items with the highest median scores captured the 'Knowledge,' 'Skills,' 'Social/Professional role and identity,' and 'Beliefs about capabilities' domains. The items with the lowest median scores captured the 'Beliefs about consequences,' 'Goals,' and 'Emotions' domains. For 14 of the 17 items, partner scores were higher than non-partner scores. All the qualitative interview participants relied on a phone triage system. Six broad themes were discovered: patient accessibility, confusions around what triage is, uncertainty and risk, relationships between service providers, job satisfaction, and the potential for total digital triage. Suggestions arose to optimize triage, such as ensuring there is sufficient time to conduct triage accurately and providing practical training to use triage efficiently. CONCLUSIONS: Many general practitioners are engaging with expanded triage systems, though more support is needed to achieve total triage across practices. Non-partner practitioners likely require more support to use the triage systems that practices take up. Additionally, practical support should be made available to help all practitioners manage the new risks and uncertainties they are likely to experience during non-face-to-face consultations.