ABSTRACT
Vaccination reduces the risks related to infectious disease, especially among more vulnerable groups, such as older adults. The vaccines available to older adults in the UK through the government-funded programme currently include influenza, pneumococcal, shingles and COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of the programme is disease prevention and improving wellbeing among the ageing population. Yet, the target population's views of the programme remain unknown. This paper aims to increase the understanding of older adults' perceptions of the vaccination programme available in the UK. A total of 13 online focus groups (56 informants) were carried out for this qualitative study. The findings indicate that getting vaccinated involves personal decision-making processes, which are influenced by previous experiences and interpersonal interactions. Factors related to the wider community and culture are less prominent in explaining vaccination decisions. However, opportunistic vaccination offers, a lack of information and a lack of opportunities to discuss vaccines, especially with healthcare professionals, are prominent factors. The study provides in-depth data about the rationale behind older adults' vaccination decisions in the UK. We recommend that the provision of information and opportunities to discuss vaccines and infectious disease be improved to enable older adults' to make better informed decisions regarding the vaccines available to them.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Social contact survey data forms a core component of modern epidemic models: however, there has been little assessment of the potential biases in such data. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with university students who had (n = 13) and had never (n = 14) completed a social contact survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative findings were explored quantitatively by analysing participation data. RESULTS: The opportunity to contribute to COVID-19 research, to be heard and feel useful were frequently reported motivators for participating in the contact survey. Reductions in survey engagement following lifting of COVID-19 restrictions may have occurred because the research was perceived to be less critical and/or because the participants were busier and had more contacts. Having a high number of contacts to report, uncertainty around how to report each contact, and concerns around confidentiality were identified as factors leading to inaccurate reporting. Focus groups participants thought that financial incentives or provision of study results would encourage participation. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives could improve engagement with social contact surveys. Qualitative research can inform the format, timing, and wording of surveys to optimise completion and accuracy.