"Vaccine Passports" May Backfire: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Study in the UK and Israel on Willingness to Get Vaccinated against COVID-19.

Domestic "vaccine passports" are being implemented across the world as a way of increasing vaccinated people's freedom of movement and to encourage vaccination. However, these vaccine passports may affect people's vaccination decisions in unintended and undesirable ways. This cross-sectional study investigated whether people's willingness and motivation to get vaccinated relate to their psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness), and how vaccine passports might affect these needs. Across two countries and 1358 participants, we found that need frustration-particularly autonomy frustration-was associated with lower willingness to get vaccinated and with a shift from self-determined to external motivation. In Israel (a country with vaccine passports), people reported greater autonomy frustration than in the UK (a country without vaccine passports). Our findings suggest that control measures, such as domestic vaccine passports, may have detrimental effects on people's autonomy, motivation, and willingness to get vaccinated. Policies should strive to achieve a highly vaccinated population by supporting individuals' autonomous motivation to get vaccinated and using messages of autonomy and relatedness, rather than applying pressure and external controls.

Public Health and Risk Communication During COVID-19-Enhancing Psychological Needs to Promote Sustainable Behavior Change.

Background: The current COVID-19 pandemic requires sustainable behavior change to mitigate the impact of the virus. A phenomenon which has arisen in parallel with this pandemic is an infodemic-an over-abundance of information, of which some is accurate and some is not, making it hard for people to find trustworthy and reliable guidance to make informed decisions. This infodemic has also been found to create distress and increase risks for mental health disorders, such as depression and anxiety. Aim: To propose practical guidelines for public health and risk communication that will enhance current recommendations and will cut through the infodemic, supporting accessible, reliable, actionable, and inclusive communication. The guidelines aim to support basic human psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness to support well-being and sustainable behavior change. Method: We applied the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and concepts from psychology, philosophy and human computer interaction to better understand human behaviors and motivations and propose practical guidelines for public health communication focusing on well-being and sustainable behavior change. We then systematically searched the literature for research on health communication strategies during COVID-19 to discuss our proposed guidelines in light of the emerging literature. We illustrate the guidelines in a communication case study: wearing face-coverings. Findings: We propose five practical guidelines for public health and risk communication that will cut through the infodemic and support well-being and sustainable behavior change: (1) create an autonomy-supportive health care climate; (2) provide choice; (3) apply a bottom-up approach to communication; (4) create solidarity; (5) be transparent and acknowledge uncertainty. Conclusion: Health communication that starts by fostering well-being and basic human psychological needs has the potential to cut through the infodemic and promote effective and sustainable behavior change during such pandemics. Our guidelines provide a starting point for developing a concrete public health communication strategy.

Predicting dementia from primary care records: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Possible dementia is usually identified in primary care by general practitioners (GPs) who refer to specialists for diagnosis. Only two-thirds of dementia cases are currently recorded in primary care, so increasing the proportion of cases diagnosed is a strategic priority for the UK and internationally. Variables in the primary care record may indicate risk of developing dementia, and could be combined in a predictive model to help find patients who are missing a diagnosis. We conducted a meta-analysis to identify clinical entities with potential for use in such a predictive model for dementia in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science and primary care database bibliographies. We included cohort or case-control studies which used routinely collected primary care data, to measure the association between any clinical entity and dementia. Meta-analyses were performed to pool odds ratios. A sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of non-independence of cases between studies. From a sift of 3836 papers, 20 studies, all European, were eligible for inclusion, comprising >1 million patients. 75 clinical entities were assessed as risk factors for all cause dementia, Alzheimer's (AD) and Vascular dementia (VaD). Data included were unexpectedly heterogeneous, and assumptions were made about definitions of clinical entities and timing as these were not all well described. Meta-analysis showed that neuropsychiatric symptoms including depression, anxiety, and seizures, cognitive symptoms, and history of stroke, were positively associated with dementia. Cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, heart disease, dyslipidaemia and diabetes were positively associated with VaD and negatively with AD. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are of potential value in guiding feature selection for a risk prediction tool for dementia in primary care. Limitations include findings being UK-focussed. Further predictive entities ascertainable from primary care data, such as changes in consulting patterns, were absent from the literature and should also be explored in future studies.

Effectiveness of Psychological Interventions for Postnatal Depression in Primary Care: A Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Postnatal depression affects 10% to 15% of new mothers, and approximately 90% of cases are managed in primary care. Antidepressants are effective, but adherence is poor; therefore, psychological interventions must be investigated. In this systematic review, we assessed the efficacy of psychological therapies for postnatal depression in primary care. METHODS: We undertook a systematic search to identify articles published in English between 2000 and 2014 that reported studies meeting our eligibility criteria: (1) had a randomized controlled trial design; (2) assessed psychological interventions for postnatal depression against any other treatment or a wait-list control; (3) recruited patients in primary care; and (4) enrolled mothers with a diagnosed depressive episode or a score of at least 12 on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale or at least 10 on the Beck Depression Inventory at baseline who had a child younger than 12 months. Quality was assessed using an adapted Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety, and Neurosis (CCDAN) quality rating scale, and meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration). RESULTS: Screening of 5,919 articles identified 10 studies that met inclusion criteria. These studies reported on 14 psychological intervention arms: 7 using cognitive behavioral therapy, 2 using interpersonal therapy, 2 using counseling, and 3 using other interventions. Psychological interventions resulted in lower depressive symptomatology than control both immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference = -0.38; 95% CI, -0.49 to -0.27) and at 6 months of follow-up (standardized mean difference =-0.21; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.05). We did not find any significant differences between the various types of therapy. Compared with control, the interventions also led to improvements in adjustment to parenthood, marital relationship, social support, stress, and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological interventions deliverable in the primary care setting are associated with a significant improvement in depressive symptomatology both immediately after completion and for up to 6 months of follow-up.

Measurement properties of asthma-specific quality-of-life measures: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a frequent chronic inflammatory disease of the airways, and the assessment of health-related quality of life (HrQoL) is important in both research and routine care. Various asthma-specific measures of HrQoL exist but there is uncertainty which measures are best suited for use in research and routine care. Therefore, the aim of the proposed research is a comprehensive systematic assessment of the measurement properties of the existing measures that were developed to measure asthma-specific quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a systematic review of the measurement properties of asthma-specific measures of health-related quality of life. PubMed and Embase will be searched using a selection of relevant search terms. Eligible studies will be primary empirical studies evaluating, describing or comparing measurement properties of asthma-specific HRQL tools. Eligibility assessment and data abstraction will be performed independently by two reviewers. Evidence tables will be generated for study characteristics, instrument characteristics, measurement properties and interpretability. The quality of the measurement properties will be assessed using predefined criteria. Methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. A best evidence synthesis will be undertaken if more than one study have investigated a particular measurement property. DISCUSSION: The proposed systematic review will produce a comprehensive assessment of measurement properties of existing measures of asthma-specific health-related quality of life. We also aim to derive recommendations in order to help researchers and practitioners alike in the choice of instrument. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014010491.

A systematic review of evidence for the effectiveness of practitioner-based complementary and alternative therapies in the management of rheumatic diseases: osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To critically review the evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of practitioner-based complementary therapies for patients with osteoarthritis. We excluded t'ai chi and acupuncture, which have been the subject of recent reviews. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials, published in English up to May 2011, were identified using systematic searches of bibliographic databases and searching of reference lists. Information was extracted on outcomes, statistical significance in comparison with alternative treatments and reported side effects. The methodological quality of the identified studies was determined using the Jadad scoring system. Outcomes considered were pain and patient global assessment. RESULTS: In all, 16 eligible trials were identified covering 12 therapies. Overall, there was no good evidence of the effectiveness of any of the therapies in relation to pain or global health improvement/quality of life because most therapies only had a single randomized controlled trial. Where positive results were reported, they were often comparing an active intervention with no intervention. Therapies with multiple trials either provided null (biofeedback) or inconsistent results (magnet therapy), or the trials available scored poorly for quality (chiropractic). There were few adverse events reported in the trials. CONCLUSION: There is not sufficient evidence to recommend any of the practitioner-based complementary therapies considered here for the management of OA, but neither is there sufficient evidence to conclude that they are not effective or efficacious.

A systematic review of evidence for the effectiveness of practitioner-based complementary and alternative therapies in the management of rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To critically review the evidence on the effectiveness of complementary therapies for patients with RA. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials, published in English up to May 2011, were identified using systematic searches of bibliographic databases and searching of reference lists. Information was extracted on outcomes and statistical significance in comparison with alternative treatments and reported side effects. The methodological quality of the identified studies was determined using the Jadad scoring system. All outcomes were considered but with a focus on patient global assessment and pain reporting. RESULTS: Eleven eligible trials were identified covering seven therapies. Three trials that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture reported no significant difference in pain reduction between the groups but one out of two reported an improvement in patient global assessment. Except for reduction in physician's global assessment of treatment and disease activity reported in one trial, no other comparative benefit of acupuncture was seen. There were two studies on meditation and one each on autogenic training, healing therapy, progressive muscle relaxation, static magnets and tai chi. None of these trials reported positive comparative effects on pain but some positive effects on patient global assessment were noted at individual time points in the healing therapy and magnet therapy studies. A small number of other outcomes showed comparative improvement in individual trials. There were no reports of major adverse events. CONCLUSION: The very limited evidence available indicates that for none of the practitioner-based complementary therapies considered here is there good evidence of efficacy or effectiveness in the management of RA.