Study protocol: evaluation of the 0-5 public health investment in England - a mixed-methods study integrating analyses of national linked administrative data with in-depth case studies.

INTRODUCTION: Health visiting is a long-established, nationally implemented programme that works with other services at a local level to improve the health and well-being of children and families. To maximise the impact and efficiency of the health visiting programme, policy-makers and commissioners need robust evidence on the costs and benefits of different levels and types of health visiting, for different families, in different local contexts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods study will analyse individual-level health visiting data for 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 linked with longitudinal data from children's social care, hospitals and schools to estimate the association of number and type of health visiting contacts with a range of children and maternal outcomes. We will also use aggregate local authority data to estimate the association between local models of health visiting and area-level outcomes. Outcomes will include hospitalisations, breast feeding, vaccination, childhood obesity and maternal mental health. Where possible, outcomes will be valued in monetary terms, and we will compare total costs to total benefits of different health visiting service delivery models. Qualitative case studies and extensive stakeholder input will help explain the quantitative analyses and interpret the results in the context of local policy, practice and circumstance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University College London Research Ethics Committee approved this study (ref 20561/002). Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and findings will be shared and debated with national policy-makers, commissioners and managers of health visiting services, health visitors and parents.

Motherhood and vaccine refusal in the United Kingdom: A new examination of gender, identity and the journey to contemporary non-vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary research into non-vaccination has highlighted some of the attitudes, beliefs and characteristics of non-vaccinating parents with recent research also beginning to examine the journey to non-vaccination. However, the interaction between gender, identity and non-vaccination is less well understood, as well as the non-vaccination journey for parents in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Using purposive sampling, we recruited mothers who have rejected some or all of their child's routine vaccinations in the last 5-10 years. Semi- structured interviews were conducted by phone in late 2020 and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten mothers were interviewed. They differed in socio-economic, educational and cultural backgrounds, yet all wanted the same thing: to have happy and healthy children, a goal which they saw as their responsibility and within their control and did not include vaccination. Within this shared parenting priority, identities varied considerably. Most mothers strongly rejected the label or identity of 'anti-vaxxer', preferring alternative terms with less negative social connotations. The decision not to vaccinate was predominantly made by mothers, describing a dynamic where mothers (rather than fathers/partners) were clearly responsible for their children's health, but this largely appeared to be internalized as the mother's role. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of mother's identities within the non-vaccination movement and the pressures on mothers to raise children with 'optimum health' explored in this study suggest that non-vaccination is a largely individual choice that requires nuanced and compassionate engagement to understand the root causes behind this decision.

Implementation of a quality improvement programme using the Active Patient Link call and recall system to improve timeliness and equity of childhood vaccinations: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Call and recall systems provide actionable intelligence to improve equity and timeliness of childhood vaccinations, which have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will evaluate the effectiveness, fidelity and sustainability of a data-enabled quality improvement programme delivered in primary care using an Active Patient Link Immunisation (APL-Imms) call and recall system to improve timeliness and equity of uptake in a multiethnic disadvantaged urban population. We will use qualitative methods to evaluate programme delivery, focusing on uptake and use, implementation barriers and service improvements for clinical and non-clinical primary care staff, its fidelity and sustainability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods observational study in 284 general practices in north east London (NEL). The target population will be preschool-aged children eligible to receive diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) or measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccinations and registered with an NEL general practice. The intervention comprises an in-practice call and recall tool, facilitation and training, and financial incentives. The quantitative evaluation will include interrupted time Series analyses and Slope Index of Inequality. The primary outcomes will be the proportion of children receiving at least one dose of a DTaP-containing or MMR vaccination defined, respectively, as administered between age 6 weeks and 6 months or between 12 and 18 months of age. The qualitative evaluation will involve a 'Think Aloud' method and semistructured interviews of stakeholders to assess impact, fidelity and sustainability of the APL-Imms tool, and fidelity of the implementation by facilitators. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research team has been granted permission from data controllers in participating practices to use deidentified data for audit purposes. As findings will be specific to the local context, research ethics approval is not required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and to stakeholders, including parents, health providers and commissioners.

A "step too far" or "perfect sense"? A qualitative study of British adults' views on mandating COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine passports.

BACKGROUND: Debate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive. METHODS: Qualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n = 50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: Six themes were identified in participants' narratives concerning mandates: (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create 'vaccine apartheid'; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.

Defining the determinants of vaccine uptake and undervaccination in migrant populations in Europe to improve routine and COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a systematic review.

Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to address vaccination inequities and meet the goals of WHO's new Immunisation Agenda 2030. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020219214) exploring barriers and facilitators of vaccine uptake (categorised using the 5As taxonomy: access, awareness, affordability, acceptance, activation) and sociodemographic determinants of undervaccination among migrants in the EU and European Economic Area, the UK, and Switzerland. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2021 for primary research, with no restrictions on language. 5259 data sources were screened, with 67 studies included from 16 countries, representing 366 529 migrants. We identified multiple access barriers-including language, literacy, and communication barriers, practical and legal barriers to accessing and delivering vaccination services, and service barriers such as lack of specific guidelines and knowledge of health-care professionals-for key vaccines including measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, human papillomavirus, influenza, polio, and COVID-19 vaccines. Acceptance barriers were mostly reported in eastern European and Muslim migrants for human papillomavirus, measles, and influenza vaccines. We identified 23 significant determinants of undervaccination in migrants (p<0·05), including African origin, recent migration, and being a refugee or asylum seeker. We did not identify a strong overall association with gender or age. Tailored vaccination messaging, community outreach, and behavioural nudges facilitated uptake. Migrants' barriers to accessing health care are already well documented, and this Review confirms their role in limiting vaccine uptake. These findings hold immediate relevance to strengthening vaccination programmes in high-income countries, including for COVID-19, and suggest that tailored, culturally sensitive, and evidence-informed strategies, unambiguous public health messaging, and health system strengthening are needed to address access and acceptance barriers to vaccination in migrants and create opportunities and pathways for offering catch-up vaccinations to migrants.

Preventing human papilloma virus infection: another vaccination success

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the commonest sexually transmitted infection. It has over 200 genotypes which, depending on the site of infection and type of virus, can give rise to cancers or warts. HPV infection is a prerequisite for cervical cancer and is associated to varying degrees with other anogenital cancers and, increasingly, with cancers of the oropharynx. It is also associated with anogenital warts which, while not life threatening, cause considerable morbidity. HPV vaccines have been available since 2006 and by mid-2021 have been introduced into over 110 countries. Trials and real world data have shown them to be safe and highly effective at preventing infection with HPV and anogenital warts. Data are also accumulating showing impressive reductions in cervical cancer. In UK, HPV vaccine mainly offered to girls and boys aged 12–13 years in a school-based programme. Uptake is generally high, but inequalities persist and there are concerns about the impact of a recent significant decline in uptake due to school closures arising from the COVID pandemic. HPV vaccine programmes have been significantly impacted by vaccine hesitancy in some countries, but experience in the Republic of Ireland and Denmark has shown that with involvement of the community, this can be successfully addressed. Modelling estimates that, by 2058, the vaccine will have prevented over 64,000 HPV-related cervical cancers and almost 50,000 other HPV-related cancers. The introduction of a vaccine containing nine HPV strains will further increase the number of cancers prevented. This short article outlines how HPV vaccination in adolescence is helping prevent serious illness in adult life.

Emergency department utilisation by homeless children in Dublin, Ireland: a retrospective review.

INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing prevalence, European family homelessness remains under-researched. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of homeless children attending a paediatric emergency department in Dublin, Ireland, from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2020. Comparison was made with a random cohort of 1500 non-homeless paediatric attendances in 2019. Homelessness was defined using the European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion, including those with addresses of no fixed abode, government homeless accommodation and certain residential settings. The objectives were to compare presentations between homeless and non-homeless children. We were interested in determining differences regarding demographics, healthcare utilisation, clinical presentation and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 197 437 attendances 3138 (1.59%) were homeless. Compared with the non homeless, homeless children were less likely to be ethnically Irish (37.4% vs 74.6%, p<0.001) or have been born in Ireland (82.3% vs 96.2%, p<0.001). Irish Travellers (3% vs 0.8%), Roma (22.5% vs 2.4%) and black (21.1% vs 4.2%) ethnicities were over-represented (p<0.001) in the homeless cohort.Homeless children were younger (age <12 months: 26% vs 16%; p<0.001), less likely to be fully vaccinated (73.6% vs 81.9%, p<0.001) and have registered general practitioners (89.7% vs 95.8%, p<0.001). They were more likely to represent within 2 weeks (15.9% vs 10.5%, p<0.001), and use ambulance transportation (13.2% vs 6.7%, p<0.001). Homeless children had lower acuity presentations (triage category 4-5: 47.2% vs 40.7%, p<0.001) and fewer admissions (5.9% vs 8.4%, p<0.001) than non-homeless children. DISCUSSION: Infants, Irish Travellers, Roma and black ethnicities were over-represented in homeless presentations. Homeless children had increased reliance on emergency services for primary healthcare needs.

Uptake of infant and preschool immunisations in Scotland and England during the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational study of routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic and lockdown control measures threatened to disrupt routine childhood immunisation programmes with early reports suggesting uptake would fall. In response, public health bodies in Scotland and England collected national data for childhood immunisations on a weekly or monthly basis to allow for rapid analysis of trends. The aim of this study was to use these data to assess the impact of different phases of the pandemic on infant and preschool immunisation uptake rates. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an observational study using routinely collected data for the year prior to the pandemic (2019) and immediately before (22 January to March 2020), during (23 March to 26 July), and after (27 July to 4 October) the first UK "lockdown". Data were obtained for Scotland from the Public Health Scotland "COVID19 wider impacts on the health care system" dashboard and for England from ImmForm. Five vaccinations delivered at different ages were evaluated; 3 doses of "6-in-1" diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and hepatitis B vaccine (DTaP/IPV/Hib/HepB) and 2 doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. This represented 439,754 invitations to be vaccinated in Scotland and 4.1 million for England. Uptake during the 2020 periods was compared to the previous year (2019) using binary logistic regression analysis. For Scotland, uptake within 4 weeks of a child becoming eligible by age was analysed along with geographical region and indices of deprivation. For Scotland and England, we assessed whether immunisations were up-to-date at approximately 6 months (all doses 6-in-1) and 16 to 18 months (first MMR) of age. We found that uptake within 4 weeks of eligibility in Scotland for all the 5 vaccines was higher during lockdown than in 2019. Differences ranged from 1.3% for first dose 6-in-1 vaccine (95.3 versus 94%, odds ratio [OR] compared to 2019 1.28, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] 1.18 to 1.39) to 14.3% for second MMR dose (66.1 versus 51.8%, OR compared to 2019 1.8, 95% CI 1.74 to 1.87). Significant increases in uptake were seen across all deprivation levels. In England, fewer children due to receive their immunisations during the lockdown period were up to date at 6 months (6-in-1) or 18 months (first dose MMR). The fall in percentage uptake ranged from 0.5% for first 6-in-1 (95.8 versus 96.3%, OR compared to 2019 0.89, 95% CI 0.86- to 0.91) to 2.1% for third 6-in-1 (86.6 versus 88.7%, OR compared to 2019 0.82, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.83). The use of routinely collected data used in this study was a limiting factor as detailed information on potential confounding factors were not available and we were unable to eliminate the possibility of seasonal trends in immunisation uptake. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that the national lockdown in Scotland was associated with an increase in timely childhood immunisation uptake; however, in England, uptake fell slightly. Reasons for the improved uptake in Scotland may include active measures taken to promote immunisation at local and national levels during this period and should be explored further. Promoting immunisation uptake and addressing potential vaccine hesitancy is particularly important given the ongoing pandemic and COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.

National survey of attitudes towards and intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19: implications for communications.

OBJECTIVES: To examine public views on COVID-19 vaccination and consider the implications for communications and targeted support. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Online and telephone nationally representative survey in Great Britain, January to February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 4978 adults. Survey response rate was 84%, among the 5931 panellists invited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, education, financial status), COVID-19 status, vaccine acceptance, trust in COVID-19 vaccination information sources, perceptions of vaccination priority groups and perceptions of importance of second dose. RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (83%) was associated with increasing age, higher level of education and having been invited for vaccination. Acceptance decreased with unconfirmed past COVID-19, greater financial hardship and non-white British ethnicity; black/black British participants had lowest acceptance. Overall, healthcare and scientific sources of information were most trusted. Compared with white British participants, other ethnicities had lower trust in healthcare and scientific sources. Those with lower educational attainment or financial hardship had lower trust in healthcare and scientific sources. Those with no qualifications had higher trust in media and family/friends. While trust was low overall in community or faith leaders, it was higher among those with Asian/Asian British and black/black British ethnicity compared with white British participants. Views of vaccine prioritisation were mostly consistent with UK official policy but there was support for prioritising additional groups. There was high support for having the second vaccine dose. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted engagement is needed to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in non-white British ethnic groups, in younger adults, and among those with lower education, greater financial hardship and unconfirmed past infection. Healthcare professionals and scientific advisors should play a central role in communications and tailored messaging is needed for hesitant groups. Careful communication around vaccination prioritisation continues to be required.

Exposure to mobile screen devices in early childhood and children’s language development

BackgroundThe use of mobile devices by young children has increased considerably over the last decade and especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, high-level evidence on whether the use of digital mobile devices can help or hinder the development of language in early childhood is still lacking. Exposure to mobile devices is a modifiable environmental factor and having a greater understanding of this issue is essential to better guide both policy and practice.ObjectivesTo investigate the extent to which mobile media exposure (smartphones and tablets) in early childhood (the first five years of life) affects the development of language in typically developing children.MethodsA systematic review (SR) was performed in July 2020 using the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases. The search was limited to the English and Portuguese languages and to the last ten years. Articles were reviewed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A comprehensive quality assessment tool was developed by combining the recommendations of three previously established guides and the internal and external validity of the selected studies were assessed qualitatively. A narrative approach was used to synthesise the data extracted.ResultsThe search strategy retrieved 4,443 articles of which 3 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies included were cross-sectional, published between 2019 and 2020. Their sample size ranged from 117 to 893 participants. The mean age of children varied around 18.7 and 54 months at the time of screen and language assessments. In all studies, boys accounted for approximately 54% of the participants. Different tools were used to assess language and to measure screen time, although all studies assessed both expressive and receptive language. Results of the quality assessment showed that the overall quality rate for all studies was poor. Limitations of the studies were discussed, and confounding variables related to the child, the family and the pattern of mobile device use were analysed. Overall, findings were heterogeneous and placing a dichotomous label for the effects of mobile device use on children’s language development was not possible.ConclusionsThe findings from this SR show that based on the current literature, it is not possible to categorise the effects of mobile device exposure on children’s language development as either beneficial or detrimental, since strong evidence addressing these potential associations is lacking and since there are many covariates around them. Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify cause-and-effect relations and to elucidate the long-term effects of such exposure. Moreover, in order to reduce the risk of information bias, future studies should assess language skills professionally and measure mobile media use electronically rather than rely on parents’ reports. In addition, future research should also take into account the content children watch and the quality of parent-child interactions during mobile screen use. Multicentre and cross-cultural studies should be conducted so that the external validity of findings can be increased. Certainly, paediatric societies and policymakers should consider all these factors while issuing recommendations and guidelines.