Search

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, pConclusionsWe 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 11811602What 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.

Background Effective help for depression and anxiety reaches a small proportion of people who might benefit from it. The scale of the problem suggests the need for effective, safe web-based public health services delivered directly to the public. One model, the Big White Wall (BWW), offers peer support at low cost. As these interventions are delivered digitally, we tested whether a randomized controlled trial (RCT) intervention could also be fully delivered and evaluated digitally. Objective This study aims to determine the reach, feasibility, acceptability, baseline costs, and outcomes of a public health campaign for an automated RCT of the BWW, providing digital peer support and information, compared with a standard website used by the National Health Service Moodzone (MZ), to people with probable mild-to-moderate depression and anxiety disorder. The primary outcome was the change in self-rated well-being at 6 weeks, measured using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Methods An 18-month campaign was conducted across Nottinghamshire, the United Kingdom (target population 914,000) to advertise the trial directly to the public through general marketing, web-based and social media sources, health services, other public services, and third-sector groups. The population reach of this campaign was examined by the number of people accessing the study website and self-registering to the study. A pragmatic, parallel-group, single-blind RCT was then conducted using a fully automated trial website in which eligible participants were randomized to receive either 6 months of access to BWW or signposted to MZ. Those eligible for participation were aged >16 years with probable mild-to-moderate depression or anxiety disorders. Results Of 6483 visitors to the study website, 1510 (23.29%) were eligible. Overall, 790 of 1510 (52.32%) visitors participated. Of 790 visitors, 397 (50.3%) were randomized to BWW and 393 (49.7%) to MZ. Their mean age was 38 (SD 13.8) years, 81.0% (640/790) were female, 93.4% (738/790) were White, and 47.4% (271/572) had no contact with health services in the previous 3 months. We estimated 3-month productivity losses of £1001.01 (95% CI 868.75-1133.27; US $1380.79; 95% CI 1198.35-1563.23) per person for those employed. Only 16.6% (131/790) participants completed the primary outcome assessment. There were no differences in the primary or secondary outcomes between the 2 groups. Conclusions Most participants reached and those eligible for this trial of digital interventions were White women not in recent contact with health services and whose productivity losses represent a significant annual societal burden. A fully automated RCT recruiting directly from the public failed to recruit and retain sufficient participants to test the clinical effectiveness of this digital intervention, primarily because it did not personally engage participants and explain how these unfamiliar interventions might benefit them. Trial Registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 12673428; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12673428 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/resprot.8061

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 contextEvidence before this studyWe 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 27·7% - 94·5% 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.

Background Regardless of geography or income, effective help for depression and anxiety only reaches a small proportion of those who might benefit from it. The scale of the problem suggests a role for effective, safe, anonymized public health–driven Web-based services such as Big White Wall (BWW), which offer immediate peer support at low cost. Objective Using Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) methodology, the aim of this study was to determine the population reach, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and barriers and drivers to implementation of BWW compared with Web-based information compiled by UK’s National Health Service (NHS, NHS Choices Moodzone) in people with probable mild to moderate depression and anxiety disorder. Methods A pragmatic, parallel-group, single-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) is being conducted using a fully automated trial website in which eligible participants are randomized to receive either 6 months access to BWW or signposted to the NHS Moodzone site. The recruitment of 2200 people to the study will be facilitated by a public health engagement campaign involving general marketing and social media, primary care clinical champions, health care staff, large employers, and third sector groups. People will refer themselves to the study and will be eligible if they are older than 16 years, have probable mild to moderate depression or anxiety disorders, and have access to the Internet. Results The primary outcome will be the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale at 6 weeks. We will also explore the reach, maintenance, cost-effectiveness, and barriers and drivers to implementation and possible mechanisms of actions using a range of qualitative and quantitative methods. Conclusions This will be the first fully digital trial of a direct to public online peer support program for common mental disorders. The potential advantages of adding this to current NHS mental health services and the challenges of designing a public health campaign and RCT of two digital interventions using a fully automated digital enrollment and data collection process are considered for people with depression and anxiety. Trial Registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 12673428; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN12673428/12673428 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6uw6ZJk5a)