Identifying reasons for non-acceptance of influenza vaccine in healthcare workers: an observational study using declination form data.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers are sometimes required to complete a declination form if they choose not to accept the influenza vaccine. We analysed the declination data with the goal of identifying barriers to vaccination uptake across seasons, staff groups, and pre- and post- arrival of COVID-19. METHODS: Reasons for declining the vaccine were gathered from N = 2230 declination forms, collected over four influenza seasons, 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021, from a single health board in the UK. Reasons were classified according to ten categories and the resulting distribution analysed across year and staff groups. A further analysis considered the two most prevalent categories in more detail. RESULTS: Fear of adverse reactions and Lack of perception of own risk were identified as primary reasons for not accepting the vaccine across time and across staff groups. However, there was no evidence that Lack of concern with influenza, or Doubts about vaccine efficacy was prevalent, contrary to previous findings. Overall, reasons fitted a pattern of underestimating risk associated with influenza and overestimating risk of minor adverse reactions. There were also differences across years, χ2(24) = 123, p < .001. In particular, there were relatively fewer Lack of perception of own risk responses post-COVID-19 arrival than before, χ2(8) = 28.93, p = .002. CONCLUSION: This study shows that data collected from declination forms yields sensible information concerning vaccine non-acceptance without the difficulties of retrospective or pre-emptive reasoning suffered by questionnaires. Our findings will aid messaging campaigns designed to encourage uptake of the influenza vaccine in healthcare workers. In particular, we argue for an approach focused on risk perception rather than correction of straightforward misconceptions.

COVID-19 myth-busting: an experimental study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 misinformation is a danger to public health. A range of formats are used by health campaigns to correct beliefs but data on their effectiveness is limited. We aimed to identify A) whether three commonly used myth-busting formats are effective for correcting COVID-19 myths, immediately and after a delay, and B) which is the most effective. METHODS: We tested whether three common correction formats could reduce beliefs in COVID-19 myths: (i) question-answer, ii) fact-only, (ii) fact-myth. n = 2215 participants (n = 1291 after attrition), UK representative of age and gender, were randomly assigned to one of the three formats. n = 11 myths were acquired from fact-checker websites and piloted to ensure believability. Participants rated myth belief at baseline, were shown correction images (the intervention), and then rated myth beliefs immediately post-intervention and after a delay of at least 6 days. A partial replication, n = 2084 UK representative, was also completed with immediate myth rating only. Analysis used mixed models with participants and myths as random effects. RESULTS: Myth agreement ratings were significantly lower than baseline for all correction formats, both immediately and after the delay; all ß's > 0.30, p's < .001. Thus, all formats were effective at lowering beliefs in COVID-19 misinformation. Correction formats only differed where baseline myth agreement was high, with question-answer and fact-myth more effective than fact-only immediately; ß = 0.040, p = .022 (replication set: ß = 0.053, p = .0075) and ß = - 0.051, p = .0059 (replication set: ß = - 0.061, p < .001), respectively. After the delay however, question-answer was more effective than fact-myth, ß = 0.040, p =. 031. CONCLUSION: Our results imply that COVID-19 myths can be effectively corrected using materials and formats typical of health campaigns. Campaign designers can use our results to choose between correction formats. When myth belief was high, question-answer format was more effective than a fact-only format immediately post-intervention, and after delay, more effective than fact-myth format.

Mental health of the nursing and midwifery workforce in Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: The mental health of the nursing and midwifery workforce in the UK became a public health concern before the COVID-19 pandemic. Poor mental health is a known factor for those considering leaving the profession, and workforce retention of younger members is crucial for the future of the sector. The aim of this study was to provide up-to-date estimates of mental wellbeing in this workforce in Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We did a cross-sectional analysis of demographics, work-related information, and health data from respondents to a national online survey of registered and student nurses and midwives and health-care support workers in Wales. The survey was open between June 23 and Aug 9, 2021, and 2910 people responded (approximately 7% of the workforce). Mental wellbeing was calculated using the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Score (SWEMWBS). We measured probable clinical depression (SWEMWBS <18) and possible mild depression (SWEMWBS 18-20). We used χ2 analysis and multinomial logistic regression (adjusted for sex and staff grouping) to examine associations between age groups and mental wellbeing. FINDINGS: We analysed data from 2781 (95·6%) of 2910 respondents (129 respondents did not answer all seven SWEMWBS questions). Overall, 1622 (58·3%) of 2781 respondents had SWEMWBSs indicative of either probable clinical depression (863 [31·0%] of 2781) or possible mild depression (759 [27·3%] of 2781). Probable clinical depression was highest among those aged 18-29 years (180 [33·8%] of 532), 30-39 years (250 [35·6%] of 703), and 40-49 years (233 [33·5%] of 696). Respondents in these age groups were twice as likely to report SWEMWBSs indicative of probable clinical depression than respondents aged 60 years and older (18-29 years adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2·38 [95% CI 1·43-3·97], p=0·0009; 30-39 years aOR 2·86 [1·77-4·64], p<0·0001; 40-49 years aOR 2·49 [1·54-4·02], p=0·0002). INTERPRETATION: This study highlights the substantial burden of poor mental wellbeing among the nursing and midwifery workforce in Wales, especially in those aged 49 years and younger. These figures, higher than previous estimates, could reflect the mental health effect of responding to the pandemic and could have long-term implications on workforce retention. FUNDING: None.

Causal overstatements reduced in press releases following academic study of health news.

Background: Exaggerations in health news were previously found to strongly associate with similar exaggerations in press releases. Moreover such exaggerations did not appear to attract more news. Here we assess whether press release practice changed after these reported findings; simply drawing attention to the issue may be insufficient for practical change, given the challenges of media environments. Methods: We assessed whether rates of causal over-statement in press releases based on correlational data were lower following a widely publicised paper on the topic, compared to an equivalent baseline period in the preceding year. Results: We found that over-statements in press releases were 28% (95% confidence interval = 16% to 45%) in 2014 and 13% (95% confidence interval = 6% to 25%) in 2015. A corresponding numerical reduction in exaggerations in news was not significant. The association between over-statements in news and press releases remained strong. Conclusions: Press release over-statements were less frequent following publication of Sumner et al. (2014). However, this is correlational evidence and the reduction may be due to other factors or natural fluctuations.

Co-creating a knowledge base in the "22q11.2 deletion syndrome" community.

22q11.2 DS is characterised by its variability, rarity and variety of features ranging from congenital heart conditions to psychiatric and behavioural issues. As a result, health information-seeking behaviour is different from other more common conditions. An exploratory study was carried out to understand how parents access information and support, and how that information is shared. Qualitative interviews were carried out with families and support group representatives, and thematic analysis was applied. Four main themes emerged from our findings: perceptions of clinical expertise, parent empowerment, support group activities and community building via an Internet platform. Our thematic analysis enabled the construction of a possible model of information-seeking behaviour in parents and carers of children with 22q11.2 DS. We discuss the model and how the understanding of how information is shared and gathered can aid in clinical practice.

The association between exaggeration in health-related science news and academic press releases: a replication study.

Background: Exaggerations in health news were previously found to strongly associate with similar exaggerations in press releases. Moreover, such press release exaggerations did not appear to attract more news. Methods: Here we tested the replicability of these findings in a new cohort of news and press releases based on research in UK universities in 2014 and 2015. Press releases and news were compared to their associated peer-reviewed articles to define exaggeration in advice, causal claims and human inference from non-human studies. Results: We found that the association between news and press releases did not replicate for advice exaggeration, while this association did replicate for causal claims and human inference from non-human studies. There was no evidence for higher news uptake for exaggerated press releases, consistent with previous results. Base exaggeration rates were lower for human inference from non-human studies, possibly reflecting the Concordat on Openness on Animal Research in the UK. Conclusions: Overall, the picture remains that the strength of news statements is normally associated with the strength of press release statements, and without evidence that exaggerated statements get significantly more news.

Expert quotes and exaggeration in health news: a retrospective quantitative content analysis.

Background This research is an investigation into the role of expert quotes in health news, specifically whether news articles containing a quote from an independent expert are less often exaggerated than articles without such a quote. Methods Retrospective quantitative content analysis of journal articles, press releases, and associated news articles was performed. The investigated sample are press releases on peer-reviewed health research and the associated research articles and news stories. Our sample consisted of 462 press releases and 668 news articles from the UK (2011) and 129 press releases and 185 news articles from The Netherlands (2015). We hand-coded all journal articles, press releases and news articles for correlational claims, using a well-tested codebook. The main outcome measures are types of sources that were quoted and exaggeration of correlational claims. We used counts, 2x2 tables and odds ratios to assess the relationship between presence of quotes and exaggeration of the causal claim. Results Overall, 99.1% of the UK press releases and 84.5% of the Dutch press releases contain at least one quote. For the associated news articles these percentages are: 88.6% in the UK and 69.7% in the Netherlands. Authors of the study are most often quoted and only 7.5% of UK and 7.0% of Dutch news articles contained a new quote by an expert source, i.e. one not provided by the press release. The relative odds that an article without an external expert quote contains an exaggeration of causality is 2.6. Conclusions The number of articles containing a quote from an independent expert is low, but articles that cite an external expert do contain less exaggeration.

Caveats in science-based news stories communicate caution without lowering interest.

Science stories in the media are strongly linked to changes in health-related behavior. Science writers (including journalists, press officers, and researchers) must therefore frame their stories to communicate scientific caution without disrupting coherence and disengaging the reader. In this study we investigate whether caveats ("Further research is needed to validate the results") satisfy this dual requirement. In four experiments participants read news reports with and without caveats. In Experiments 1 to 3, participants judged how cautious or confident researchers were, and how interesting or comprehensible they found the reports. News reports with caveats were judged as more cautious that those without, but levels of reader interest and comprehensibility were unaffected. In a fourth experiment, we created a mock newsroom and recruited journalism students to make judgments about which press releases should be published. Here, neither caveats nor the introduction of qualifying expressions in headlines had an effect on judgments of newsworthiness, consistent with Experiments 1 to 3. The reasons participants gave for rejecting a press release rarely referred to the caveat. Our results therefore suggest that science writers should include caveats in news reporting and that they can do so without fear of disengaging their readers or losing news uptake. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Misleading news claims can be detrimental to public health. We aimed to improve the alignment between causal claims and evidence, without losing news interest (counter to assumptions that news is not interested in communicating caution). METHODS: We tested two interventions in press releases, which are the main sources for science and health news: (a) aligning the headlines and main causal claims with the underlying evidence (strong for experimental, cautious for correlational) and (b) inserting explicit statements/caveats about inferring causality. The 'participants' were press releases on health-related topics (N = 312; control = 89, claim alignment = 64, causality statement = 79, both = 80) from nine press offices (journals, universities, funders). Outcomes were news content (headlines, causal claims, caveats) in English-language international and national media (newspapers, websites, broadcast; N = 2257), news uptake (% press releases gaining news coverage) and feasibility (% press releases implementing cautious statements). RESULTS: News headlines showed better alignment to evidence when press releases were aligned (intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) 56% vs 52%, OR = 1.2 to 1.9; as-treated analysis (AT) 60% vs 32%, OR = 1.3 to 4.4). News claims also followed press releases, significant only for AT (ITT 62% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.6; AT, 67% vs 39%, OR = 1.4 to 5.7). The same was true for causality statements/caveats (ITT 15% vs 10%, OR = 0.9 to 2.6; AT 20% vs 0%, OR 16 to 156). There was no evidence of lost news uptake for press releases with aligned headlines and claims (ITT 55% vs 55%, OR = 0.7 to 1.3, AT 58% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.7), or causality statements/caveats (ITT 53% vs 56%, OR = 0.8 to 1.0, AT 66% vs 52%, OR = 1.3 to 2.7). Feasibility was demonstrated by a spontaneous increase in cautious headlines, claims and caveats in press releases compared to the pre-trial period (OR = 1.01 to 2.6, 1.3 to 3.4, 1.1 to 26, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: News claims-even headlines-can become better aligned with evidence. Cautious claims and explicit caveats about correlational findings may penetrate into news without harming news interest. Findings from AT analysis are correlational and may not imply cause, although here the linking mechanism between press releases and news is known. ITT analysis was insensitive due to spontaneous adoption of interventions across conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10492618 (20 August 2015).