RESUMO
ObjectivesTo explore public reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic across diverse ethnic groups. DesignRemote qualitative interviews and focus groups in English or Punjabi. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis. SettingEngland and Wales June-October 2020. Participants100 participants from 19 diverse self-identified ethnic groups. ResultsDismay, frustration and altruism were reported across all ethnic groups during the first six to nine months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dismay was caused by participants reported individual, family and community risks, and loss of support networks. Frustration was caused by reported lack of recognition of the efforts of minority ethnic groups (MEGs), inaction by government to address COVID-19 and inequalities, rule breaking by government advisors, changing government rules around: border controls, personal protective equipment, social distancing, eating out, and perceived poor communication around COVID-19 and the Public Health England (PHE) COVID-19 disparities report (leading to reported increased racism and social isolation). Altruism was felt by all, in the resilience of NHS staff and their communities and families pulling together. Data, participants suggested actions, and the Behaviour Change Wheel informed suggested interventions and policies to help control COVID-19. ConclusionTo maintain public trust, it is imperative that governmental bodies consider vulnerable groups, producing clear COVID-19 control guidance with contingency, fiscal, service provision and communication policies for the next rise in COVID-19 cases. This needs to be combined with public interventions including information, education, modelling and enablement of infection prevention through local community involvement and persuasion techniques or incentivisation. Government policy needs to review and include town and social planning leading to environmental restructuring that facilitates infection prevention control. This includes easy access to hand-washing facilities in homes, work, all food providers and shopping centres; toilet facilities as our Travellers mentioned, and adequate living accommodation and work environment facilitating IPC for all. Strengths and limitationsO_LIThis is amongst the largest qualitative studies on attitudes to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK general public across ethnic groups, ages and religions, adding insights to previous smaller qualitative studies, from a broader range of participants. C_LIO_LIThe qualitative methodology allowed us to discuss participants responses around the COVID-19 pandemic, probing their answers to obtain detailed data to inform needs across ethnic groups. C_LIO_LIMost data collection was undertaken in English and therefore excludes non-English speaking sectors of the population who may have experienced the COVID-19 pandemic differently. C_LIO_LIWe did not obtain the views of older members of the population over 70 years, who were most at risk. C_LIO_LIThe data reflect public perceptions six to nine months into the pandemic when some of the social distancing rules had been relaxed in England; as the pandemic progresses attitudes and needs may well change. C_LI
RESUMO
BackgroundSeveral countries now have mandatory SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) or the general population. HCWs views on this are largely unknown. MethodsWe administered an online questionnaire to 17891 United Kingdom (UK) HCWs in Spring 2021 as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) nationwide prospective cohort study. We categorised responses to a free-text question "What should society do if people dont get vaccinated against COVID-19?" using content analysis. We collapsed categories into a binary variable: favours mandatory vaccination or not and used logistic regression to calculate its demographic predictors, and occupational, health and attitudinal predictors adjusted for demographics. FindingsOf 5633 questionnaire respondents, 3235 answered the freetext question; 18% (n=578) of those favoured mandatory vaccination but the most frequent suggestion was education (32%, n=1047). Older HCWs, HCWs vaccinated against influenza (OR 1.48; 95%CI 1.10 - 1.99, vs none) and with more positive vaccination attitudes generally (OR 1.10; 95%CI 1.06 - 1.14) were more likely to favour mandatory vaccination (OR 1.26; 95%CI 1.17 - 1.37, per decade increase), whereas female HCWs (OR= 0.80, 95%CI 0.65 - 0.99, vs male), Black HCWs (OR= 0.48, 95%CI 0.26 - 0.87, vs White), those hesitant about COVID-19 vaccination (OR= 0.56; 95%CI 0.43 - 0.71, vs not hesitant), in an Allied Health Profession (OR 0.67; 95%CI 0.51 - 0.88, vs Medical), or who trusted their organisation (OR 0.78; 95%CI 0.63 - 0.96) were less likely to. InterpretationOnly one in six of the HCWs in this large, diverse, UK-wide sample favoured mandatory vaccination. Building trust, educating and supporting HCWs who are hesitant about vaccination may be more acceptable, effective and equitable. FundingMRC-UK Research and Innovation grant (MR/V027549/1) and the Department of Health and Social Care via the National Institute for Health Research.
RESUMO
BackgroundVaccination is key to successful prevention of COVID-19 particularly nosocomial acquired infection in health care workers (HCWs). Vaccine hesitancy is common in the population and in HCWs, and like COVID-19 itself, hesitancy is more frequent in ethnic minority groups. UK-REACH (United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes) is a large-scale study of COVID-19 in UK HCWs from diverse ethnic backgrounds, which includes measures of vaccine hesitancy. The present study explores predictors of vaccine hesitancy using a phenomic approach, considering several hundred questionnaire-based measures. MethodsUK-REACH includes a questionnaire study encompassing 12,431 HCWs who were recruited from December 2020 to March 2021 and completed a lengthy online questionnaire (785 raw items; 392 derived measures; 260 final measures). Ethnicity was classified using the Office for National Statistics five (ONS5) and eighteen (ONS18) categories. Missing data were handled by multiple imputation. Variable selection used the islasso package in R, which provides standard errors so that results from imputations could be combined using Rubins rules. The data were modelled using path analysis, so that predictors, and predictors of predictors could be assessed. Significance testing used the Bayesian approach of Kass and Raftery, a very strong Bayes Factor of 150, N=12,431, and a Bonferroni correction giving a criterion of p<4.02 x 10-8 for the main regression, and p<3.11 x 10-10 for variables in the path analysis. ResultsAt the first step of the phenomic analysis, six variables were direct predictors of greater vaccine hesitancy: Lower pro-vaccination attitudes; no flu vaccination in 2019-20; pregnancy; higher COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs; younger age; and lower optimism the roll-out of population vaccination. Overall 44 lower variables in total were direct or indirect predictors of hesitancy, with the remaining 215 variables in the phenomic analysis not independently predicting vaccine hesitancy. Key variables for predicting hesitancy were belief in conspiracy theories of COVID-19 infection, and a low belief in vaccines in general. Conspiracy beliefs had two main sets of influences: O_LIHigher Fatalism, which was influenced a) by high external and chance locus of control and higher need for closure, which in turn were associated with neuroticism, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness; and b) by religion being important in everyday life, and being Muslim. C_LIO_LIreceiving information via social media, not having higher education, and perceiving greater risks to self, the latter being influenced by higher concerns about spreading COVID, greater exposure to COVID-19, and financial concerns. C_LI There were indirect effects of ethnicity, mediated by religion. Religion was more important for Pakistani and African HCWs, and less important for White and Chinese groups. Lower age had a direct effect on hesitancy, and age and female sex also had several indirect effects on hesitancy. ConclusionsThe phenomic approach, coupled with a path analysis revealed a complex network of social, cognitive, and behavioural influences on SARS-Cov-2 vaccine hesitancy from 44 measures, 6 direct and 38 indirect, with the remaining 215 measures not having direct or indirect effects on hesitancy. It is likely that issues of trust underpin many associations with hesitancy. Understanding such a network of influences may help in tailoring interventions to address vaccine concerns and facilitate uptake in more hesistant groups. FundingUKMRI-MRC and NIHR
RESUMO
IntroductionHealthcare workers (HCWs), particularly those from ethnic minority groups, have been shown to be at disproportionately higher risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to the general population. However, there is insufficient evidence on how demographic and occupational factors influence infection risk among ethnic minority HCWs. MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 Outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) cohort study. We used logistic regression to examine associations of demographic, household and occupational predictor variables with SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by PCR, serology or suspected COVID-19) in a diverse group of HCWs. Results2,496 of the 10,772 HCWs (23.2%) who worked during the first UK national lockdown in March 2020 reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. In an adjusted model, demographic and household factors associated with increased odds of infection included younger age, living with other key workers and higher religiosity. Important occupational risk factors associated with increased odds of infection included attending to a higher number of COVID-19 positive patients (aOR 2.49, 95%CI 2.03-3.05 for [≥]21 patients per week vs none), working in a nursing or midwifery role (1.35, 1.15- 1.58, compared to doctors), reporting a lack of access to personal protective equipment (1.27, 1.15 - 1.41) and working in an ambulance (1.95, 1.52-2.50) or hospital inpatient setting (1.54, 1.37 - 1.74). Those who worked in Intensive Care Units were less likely to have been infected (0.76, 0.63-0.90) than those who did not. Black HCWs were more likely to have been infected than their White colleagues, an effect which attenuated after adjustment for other known predictors. ConclusionsWe identified key sociodemographic and occupational risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst UK HCWs, and have determined factors that might contribute to a disproportionate odds of infection in HCWs from Black ethnic groups. These findings demonstrate the importance of social and occupational factors in driving ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes, and should inform policies, including targeted vaccination strategies and risk assessments aimed at protecting HCWs in future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registrationISRCTN 11811602
RESUMO
BackgroundGlobally, healthcare workers (HCWs) are prioritised for receiving vaccinations against the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Previous research has shown disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake among HCWs based on ethnicity, job role, sex, age, and deprivation. However, vaccine attitudes underpinning these variations are yet to be fully explored. MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study with 164 HCWs from different ethnicities, sexes, job roles, migration statuses, and regions in the United Kingdom (UK). Interviews and focus groups were conducted using Microsoft Teams or telephone, and recorded with participants permission. Recordings were transcribed and thematically analysed following an inductive approach. FindingsWe conducted an in-depth analysis of 53 randomly selected transcripts (involving 82 participants) to generate rapid evidence. Four different vaccine attitudes were identified: Active Acceptance, Passive Acceptance, Passive Decline, and Active Decline. Factors influencing vaccine acceptance include: knowledge of vaccine; risk perception; positive attitude towards other vaccines; social influences; and considerations about the future. Correspondingly, barriers to vaccine acceptance were identified as, low trust in the vaccine and historical (mis)trust, inadequate communication, and inequities in delivery and access. Opinion on mandatory vaccination was divided. InterpretationOur data show that vaccine attitudes are diverse and elements of hesitancy may remain even after vaccine acceptance. This has implications for the sustainability of the vaccine programme, particularly as new components (e.g. boosters) are being added. Based on our findings we recommend trust-building, designing inclusive and accessible information, and addressing structural inequities for improving vaccine uptake among HCWs. FundingUKRI-MRC and NIHR.
RESUMO
ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate personal protective equipment (aPPE) for healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) during the first UK national COVID-19 lockdown (March 2020) and at the time of questionnaire response (December 2020 - February 2021). DesignTwo cross sectional analyses using data from a questionnaire-based cohort study. SettingNationwide questionnaire from 4th December 2020 to 28th February 2021. ParticipantsA representative sample of HCWs or ancillary workers in a UK healthcare setting aged 16 or over, registered with one of seven main UK healthcare regulatory bodies. Main outcome measureBinary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). Results10,508 HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 3702 (35.2%) of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 6806 (83.9%) reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. After adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector, work region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs (per decade increase in age: aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.26, p<0.001) and those working in Intensive Care Units (1.61, 1.38 - 1.89, p<0.001) were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Those from Asian ethnic groups compared to White (0.77, 0.67-0.89, p<0.001), those in allied health professional (AHPs) and dental roles (vs those in medical roles; AHPs: 0.77, 0.68 - 0.87, p<0.001; dental: 0.63, 0.49-0.81, p<0.001), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none ([≥]21 patients 0.74, 0.61-0.90, p=0.003) were less likely to report aPPE at all times in the primary analysis. aPPE at all times was also not uniform across UK regions (reported access being better in South West and North East England than London). Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times (2.18, 1.97-2.40, p<0.001). With the exception of occupation, these factors were also significantly associated with aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. ConclusionsWe found that only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the period of the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key sociodemographic and occupational determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, the majority of which have persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important public health implications for HCWs, particularly as cases of infection and long-COVID continue to rise in the UK. Trial registrationISRCTN 11811602 What is already known on this topicAccess to personal protective equipment (PPE) is crucial to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from infection. Limited data exist concerning the prevalence of, and factors relating to, PPE access for HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK) during the COVID-19 pandemic. What this study addsOnly a third of HCWs reported having access to appropriate PPE all of the time during the first UK national lockdown. Older HCWs, those working in Intensive Care Units and those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, were more likely to report access to adequate PPE. Those from Asian ethnic groups (compared to White ethnic groups) and those who saw a high number of COVID-19 were less likely to report access to adequate PPE. Our findings have important implications for the mental and physical health of HCWs working during the pandemic in the UK.
RESUMO
BackgroundIn most countries, healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a priority group for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to their elevated risk of COVID-19 and potential contribution to nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Concerns have been raised that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant (defined by the World Health Organisation as refusing or delaying a vaccination) than those of White ethnicity, but there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy and its predictors in UK HCWs. MethodsNationwide prospective cohort study and qualitative study in a multi-ethnic cohort of clinical and non-clinical UK HCWs. We analysed ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy adjusting for demographics, vaccine trust, and perceived risk of COVID-19. We explored reasons for hesitancy in qualitative data using a framework analysis. Findings11,584 HCWs were included in the cohort analysis. 23% (2704) reported vaccine hesitancy. Compared to White British HCWs (21.3% hesitant), HCWs from Black Caribbean (54.2%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (38.1%), Black African (34.4%), Chinese (33.1%), Pakistani (30.4%), and White Other (28.7%) ethnic groups were significantly more likely to be hesitant. In adjusted analysis, Black Caribbean (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 - 5.37), Black African (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.49 - 2.82), White Other ethnic groups (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84) were significantly more likely to be hesitant. Other independent predictors of hesitancy were younger age, female sex, higher score on a COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs scale, lower trust in employer, lack of influenza vaccine uptake in the previous season, previous COVID-19, and pregnancy. Qualitative data from 99 participants identified the following contributors to hesitancy: lack of trust in government and employers, safety concerns due to the speed of vaccine development, lack of ethnic diversity in vaccine studies, and confusing and conflicting information. Participants felt uptake in ethnic minority communities might be improved through inclusive communication, involving HCWs in the vaccine rollout, and promoting vaccination through trusted networks. InterpretationDespite increased risk of COVID-19, HCWs from some ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant than their White British colleagues. Strategies to build trust and dispel myths surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in these communities are urgently required. Public health communications should be inclusive, non-stigmatising and utilise trusted networks. FundingMRC-UK Research and Innovation (MR/V027549/1), the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Biomedical Research Centres and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched Pubmed using the following search terms ((COVID-19).ti,ab OR (SARS-CoV-2).ti,ab) AND ((vaccine).ti,ab OR (vaccination).ti,ab OR (immunisation).ti,ab)) AND ((healthcare worker).ti,ab OR (health worker).ti,ab OR (doctor).ti,ab OR (nurse).ti,ab OR (healthcare professional).ti,ab)) AND ((hesitancy).ti,ab OR (refusal).ti,ab OR (uptake).ti,ab)). The search returned 60 results, of which 38 were excluded after title and abstract screening, 11 studies were not conducted in a population of healthcare workers, 20 did not present data on vaccine intention or uptake, 5 were related to vaccines other than the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, 1 was unrelated to vaccination and 1 had been withdrawn. The 22 remaining articles were survey studies focussed on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intention in healthcare workers. Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance varied widely from 27{middle dot}7% - 94{middle dot}5% depending on the country in which the study was performed, and the occupational group studied. Only 2 studies (both conducted in the USA) had a sample size greater than 10,000. Most studies found females, non-medical healthcare staff and those refusing influenza vaccine to be more likely to be hesitant. There was conflicting evidence about the effects of age and previous COVID-19 on hesitancy. Only 3 studies (all from the USA), presented data disaggregated by ethnicity, all finding Black ethnic HCWs were most likely to be hesitant. Common themes amongst studies that investigated reasons for vaccine hesitancy were concerns about safety of vaccines, fear of side effects and short development timeframes. We did not find any studies on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in UK healthcare workers in the published literature. Added value of this studyThis study is amongst the largest SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy studies in the literature. It is the largest study outside the USA and is the only study in UK HCWs. Our work focusses on the association of ethnicity with vaccine hesitancy, and we are the first study outside the USA to present results by ethnic group. The large number of ethnic minority HCWs in our study allows for examination of the outcome by more granular ethnicity categories than have previously been studied, allowing us to detect important differences in vaccine hesitancy levels within the broad White and Asian ethnic groupings. Our large sample size and the richness of our cohort study dataset allows us to control for many potential confounders in our multivariable analysis, and provide novel data on important potential drivers of hesitancy including discrimination, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, religion/religiosity and personality traits. Additionally, we combine quantitative with qualitative data providing a deeper understanding of the drivers of hesitancy and potential strategies to improve vaccine uptake in HCWs from ethnic minority communities. Implications of all the available evidenceAround a quarter of UK healthcare workers reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy. In accordance with previous studies in other countries, we determined that female sex and lack of influenza vaccine in the previous season were important predictors of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in UK HCWs, although in contrast to most studies in the published literature, after adjustment we do not demonstrate differences in hesitancy levels by occupational role. Importantly, previous literature provides conflicting evidence of the effects of age and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on vaccine hesitancy. In our study, younger HCWs and those with evidence of previous COVID-19 were more likely to be hesitant. This study provides novel data on increased hesitancy levels within Black Caribbean, Mixed White and Black Caribbean, Black African, Chinese, Pakistani and White Other ethnic groups. Mistrust (of vaccines in general, in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines specifically, in healthcare systems and research) and misinformation appear to be important drivers of hesitancy within HCWS in the UK. Our data indicate that despite facing an increased risk of COVID-19 compared to their White colleagues, UK HCWs from some ethnic minority groups continue to exhibit greater levels of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy. This study provides policy makers with evidence to inform strategies to improve uptake.
RESUMO
ImportanceThe association of ethnicity with outcomes in patients with COVID-19 is unclear. ObjectiveTo determine whether the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality are associated with ethnicity. Data SourcesWe searched all English language articles published 1st December 2019 - 30th June 2020 within MEDLINE, EMBASE, PROSPERO and the Cochrane library using indexing terms for COVID-19 and ethnicity, as well as manuscripts awaiting peer review on MedRxiv during the same period. Study SelectionIncluded studies reported original clinical data, disaggregated by ethnicity, on patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. We excluded correspondence, area level, modelling and basic science articles. Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion. Of 926 identified articles, 35 were included in the meta-analyses. Data Extraction and SynthesisThe review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Reviewers independently extracted data using a piloted form on: (1) rates of infection, ICU admission and mortality by ethnicity; and (2) unadjusted and adjusted data comparing ethnic minority and White groups. Data were pooled using random effects models. Main Outcomes and MeasuresOutcomes were: (1) infection with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed on molecular testing; (2) ICU admission; and (3) mortality in COVID-19 confirmed and suspected cases. Results13,535,562 patients from 35 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Black, Asian and Hispanic individuals had a greater risk of infection compared to White individuals (Black: pooled adjusted RR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.59-2.67; Asian: 1.35, 95%CI: 1.15-1.59; Hispanic: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.39-2.25). Black individuals were significantly more likely to be admitted to ICU than White individuals (pooled adjusted RR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.02-2.55). Risk of mortality was similar across ethnicities among hospitalised patients, but increased among Asian and Mixed ethnic groups in the general population. ConclusionsBlack, Asian and Hispanic ethnic groups are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Black individuals may be more likely to require ICU admission for COVID-19. There may also be disparities in risk of death from COVID-19 at a population level. Our findings are of critical public health importance and should inform policy on minimising SARS-CoV-2 exposure in ethnic minority groups. KEY POINTSO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSIs ethnicity associated with vulnerability to, and outcomes from, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? FindingsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, rates of infection and outcomes from COVID-19 were compared between ethnic groups. Individuals from Black, Asian and Hispanic ethnicity were significantly more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection than those of White ethnicity. Black individuals were more likely to need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for COVID-19 than White individuals. Risk of mortality was similar across ethnicities among hospitalised patients, but increased among Asian and Mixed ethnic groups in the general population. MeaningThere is strong evidence for an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst ethnic minorities, and targeted public health policies are required to reduce this risk.
