Categorising interventions to enhance vaccine uptake or reduce vaccine hesitancy in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is one of the most important public health interventions to combat infectious disease. However, vaccine hesitancy prevents us reaching the global target of vaccine uptake (e.g., 75 % of influenza vaccination in at-risk groups). This review summarises all interventions designed to reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake for all types of vaccines offered to adults (≥18 years) since 2000, in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL EBSCO, and Scopus were searched (September 19, 2023). The PRISMA Checklist 2020 was used for quality checking. Data from randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) were analysed with a meta-analysis and narrative analysis. In all included studies, a narrative synthesis was undertaken to summarise, evaluate and characterisethe reported behaviour change interventions into four categories: organisational-level, public demand, provider-level, and multidimensional interventions. Findings are evaluated based on the MINDSPACE framework to understand the possible psychological mechanisms underpinning the interventions. FINDINGS: A total of 9,842 articles were identified, 50 met the inclusion criteria. Interventions aimed to boost vaccine uptake or reduce hesitancy of influenza (50 %), COVID-19 (32 %), hepatitis B (6 %), and other vaccines. A meta-analysis was conducted for nine RCTs evaluating various interventions impact on vaccine uptake. The pooled effect was statistically significant (OR with 95 % CI = 1.23 [1.07 to 1.41]). Providing certain and understandableinformation and using a reminder system with personal messages or letters were the most frequently documented and effective interventions to enhance public demand (enhance information salience). Organisational level interventions intended to make vaccinations more accessible (e.g., providing vaccination at alternative places or times). Provider-oriented interventions encouraged healthcare workers to focus on reducing vaccine hesitancy or enhancing vaccine uptake. INTERPRETATION: Among the main MINDSPACE techniques, enhancing the salience of vaccine information and priming vaccination by improving access were identified as the most applied and effective interventions in the UK.

What's New in Dementia Risk Prediction Modelling? An Updated Systematic Review.

Introduction: Identifying individuals at high risk of dementia is critical to optimized clinical care, formulating effective preventative strategies, and determining eligibility for clinical trials. Since our previous systematic reviews in 2010 and 2015, there has been a surge in dementia risk prediction modelling. The aim of this study was to update our previous reviews to explore, and critically review, new developments in dementia risk modelling. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from March 2014 to June 2022. Studies were included if they were population- or community-based cohorts (including electronic health record data), had developed a model for predicting late-life incident dementia, and included model performance indices such as discrimination, calibration, or external validation. Results: In total, 9,209 articles were identified from the electronic search, of which 74 met the inclusion criteria. We found a substantial increase in the number of new models published from 2014 (>50 new models), including an increase in the number of models developed using machine learning. Over 450 unique predictor (component) variables have been tested. Nineteen studies (26%) undertook external validation of newly developed or existing models, with mixed results. For the first time, models have also been developed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and others validated in racial and ethnic minority groups. Conclusion: The literature on dementia risk prediction modelling is rapidly evolving with new analytical developments and testing in LMICs. However, it is still challenging to make recommendations about which one model is the most suitable for routine use in a clinical setting. There is an urgent need to develop a suitable, robust, validated risk prediction model in the general population that can be widely implemented in clinical practice to improve dementia prevention.

Population attributable fractions of modifiable risk factors for dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: More than 57 million people have dementia worldwide. Evidence indicates a change in dementia prevalence and incidence in high-income countries, which is likely to be due to improved life-course population health. Identifying key modifiable risk factors for dementia is essential for informing risk reduction and prevention strategies. We therefore aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) for dementia associated with modifiable risk factors. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO, via Ovid, from database inception up to June 29, 2023, for population-derived or community-based studies and reviews reporting a PAF value for one or more modifiable risk factor for later-life dementia (prevalent or incident dementia in people aged ≥60 years), with no restrictions on dementia subtype, the sex or baseline age of participants, or the period of study. Articles were independently screened for inclusion by four authors, with disagreements resolved through consensus. Data including unweighted and weighted PAF values (weighted to account for communality or overlap in risk) were independently extracted into a predefined template by two authors and checked by two other authors. When five or more unique studies investigated a given risk factor or combination of the same factors, random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate a pooled PAF percentage estimate for the factor or combination of factors. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022323429. FINDINGS: 4024 articles were identified, and 74 were included in our narrative synthesis. Overall, PAFs were reported for 61 modifiable risk factors, with sufficient data available for meta-analysis of 12 factors (n=48 studies). In meta-analyses, the highest pooled unweighted PAF values were estimated for low education (17·2% [95% CI 14·4-20·0], p<0·0001), hypertension (15·8% [14·7-17·1], p<0·0001), hearing loss (15·6% [10·3-20·9], p<0·0001), physical inactivity (15·2% [12·8-17·7], p<0·0001), and obesity (9·4% [7·3-11·7], p<0·0001). According to weighted PAF values, low education (9·3% [6·9-11·7], p<0·0001), physical inactivity (7·3% [3·9-11·2], p=0·0021), hearing loss (7·2% [5·2-9·7], p<0·0001), hypertension (7·1% [5·4-8·8], p<0·0001), and obesity (5·3% [3·2-7·4], p=0·0001) had the highest pooled estimates. When low education, midlife hypertension, midlife obesity, smoking, physical inactivity, depression, and diabetes were combined (Barnes and Yaffe seven-factor model; n=9 studies), the pooled unweighted and weighted PAF values were 55·0% (46·5-63·5; p<0·0001) and 32·0% (26·6-37·5; p<0·0001), respectively. The pooled PAF values for most individual risk factors were higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) versus high-income countries. INTERPRETATION: Governments need to invest in a life-course approach to dementia prevention, including policies that enable quality education, health-promoting environments, and improved health. This investment is particularly important in LMICs, where the potential for prevention is high, but resources, infrastructure, budgets, and research focused on ageing and dementia are limited. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council).

Determinants for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the general population: a systematic review of reviews.

Aim: Although multiple COVID-19 vaccines are approved for global use, vaccine hesitancy poses a substantial risk for global health. Therefore, the aim of this umbrella review is to identify those factors that influence COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the general population. This is necessary to improve the effectiveness of future vaccination programmes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) were searched on December 21, 2021. This review included reviews which investigated factors of intention, willingness, or hesitancy with regard to the COVID-19 vaccination in adult populations, with no restrictions on setting. Content-based structure was used to synthesise the extracted data. The findings were presented based on the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) Working Group Model for vaccine hesitancy. Results: A total of 3,392 studies were identified, of which 31 met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently documented factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy included contextual factors, such as sex, age, and social inequalities; individual and group factors, such as trust in the healthcare system, public health authorities, and governments, and history of vaccination; vaccine-specific factors, such as concern for vaccine safety, perceived vaccine barriers, perceived effectiveness of vaccines, and concern about the rapid development of the vaccine; and disease-specific factors, such as fear of being infected with COVID-19, perceived severity of COVID-19, and knowledge of COVID-19. Conclusion: There are multiple factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Our findings lay the foundation to further understand COVID-19 vaccination uptake and provide possible targets for intervention programmes. However, there are gaps in research concerning certain populations, including vaccination in people with mental disorders. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-022-01753-9.

Knowledge and perceptions of Alzheimer's disease in three ethnic groups of younger adults in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a global public health problem with an ageing population. Knowledge is essential to promote early awareness, diagnosis and treatment of AD symptoms. AD knowledge is influenced by many cultural factors including cultural beliefs, attitudes and language barriers. This study aims: (1) to define AD knowledge level and perceptions amongst adults between 18 and 49 years of age in the UK; (2) to compare knowledge and perceptions of AD among three main ethnic groups (Asian, Blacks, and Whites); and (3) to assess potential associations of age, gender, education level, affinity with older people (65 or over), family history and caregiving history with AD knowledge. METHODS: Data was collected from 186 participants as a convenience sample of younger adults of three different ethnicities (16.1% Asian, 16.7% Black, 67.2% White), living in the UK, recruited via an online research platform. The majority of the participants were in the 18-34 years age group (87.6%). Demographic characteristics of participants and AD knowledge correlation were assessed by the 30-item Alzheimer's Disease Knowledge Scale (ADKS), comprising 7 content domains. ANOVA/ANCOVA were used to assess differences in AD knowledge by ethnicity, gender, education level, age and affinity with dementia and Alzheimer's patients. RESULTS: For AD general knowledge across all respondents only 45.0% answers were correct. No significant differences were found for the total ADKS score between ethnicities in this younger age group, who did not differ in education level. However, there were significant knowledge differences for the ADKS symptom domain score even after controlling for other demographics variables such as gender, education level (p = 0.005). White respondents were more likely to know about AD symptoms than their Black counterparts (p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: The study's findings suggest that the AD knowledge level is not adequate for all ethnic groups. Meanwhile, significant differences were observed in symptoms, between ethnic groups, and therefore, differ in their needs regards health communication. The study contributes to an understanding of ethnicity differences in AD knowledge amongst adults from 18 to 49 years of age in the UK and may also provide input into an intervention plan for different ethnicities' information needs.