Search

BackgroundWhen vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears.MethodsIn total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January–5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey–injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears.ResultsIn total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97–2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09–0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups.ConclusionsAcross the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.

Genome sequencing (GS) is increasingly being used to diagnose rare diseases in paediatric patients; however, no measures exist to evaluate their knowledge of this technology. We aimed to develop a robust measure of knowledge of GS (the kids‐KOGS') suitable for use in the paediatric setting as well as for general public education. The target age was 11 to 15 year olds. An iterative process involving six sequential stages was conducted to develop a set of draft true/false items. These were then administered to 539 target‐age school pupils (mean 12.8; SD ± 1.3), from the United Kingdom. Item‐response theory was used to confirm the psychometric suitability of the candidate items. None of the Items was identified as misfits. All 10 items performed well under the two‐parameter logistic model. The internal consistency of the test was 0.84 (Cronbach alpha value) indicating excellent reliability. The mean kids‐KOGS score in the sample overall was 4.24 (SD; 2.49), where 0 = low knowledge and 10 = high knowledge. Age was positively associated with score in a multivariate linear regression. The kids‐KOGS is a short and reliable tool that can be used by researchers and healthcare professionals offering GS to paediatric patients. Further validation in a clinical setting is required., The final 10‐item Knowledge of Genome Sequencing Measure for Young People (kids‐KOGS).

Funder: University of Oxford Covid-19 Research Response Fund; Grant(s): Project Reference: 0009519, We explore the implications of online social endorsement for the Covid-19 vaccination program in the United Kingdom. Vaccine hesitancy is a long-standing problem, but it has assumed great urgency due to the pandemic. By early 2021, the United Kingdom had the world’s highest Covid-19 mortality per million of population. Our survey of a nationally representative sample of UK adults ( N = 5,114) measured socio-demographics, social and political attitudes, media diet for getting news about Covid-19, and intention to use social media and personal messaging apps to encourage or discourage vaccination against Covid-19. Cluster analysis identified six distinct media diet groups: news avoiders, mainstream/official news samplers, super seekers, omnivores, the social media dependent, and the TV dependent. We assessed whether these media diets, together with key attitudes, including Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy, conspiracy mentality, and the news-finds-me attitude (meaning giving less priority to active monitoring of news and relying more on one’s online networks of friends for information), predict the intention to encourage or discourage vaccination. Overall, super-seeker and omnivorous media diets are more likely than other media diets to be associated with the online encouragement of vaccination. Combinations of (a) news avoidance and high levels of the news-finds-me attitude and (b) social media dependence and high levels of conspiracy mentality are most likely to be associated with online discouragement of vaccination. In the direct statistical model, a TV-dependent media diet is more likely to be associated with online discouragement of vaccination, but the moderation model shows that a TV-dependent diet most strongly attenuates the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and discouraging vaccination. Our findings support public health communication based on four main methods. First, direct contact, through the post, workplace, or community structures, and through phone counseling via local health services, could reach the news avoiders. Second, TV public information advertisements should point to authoritative information sources, such as National Health Service (NHS) and other public health websites, which should then feature clear and simple ways for people to share material among their online social networks. Third, informative social media campaigns will provide super seekers with good resources to share, while also encouraging the social media dependent to browse away from social media platforms and visit reliable and authoritative online sources. Fourth, social media companies should expand and intensify their removal of vaccine disinformation and anti-vax accounts, and such efforts should be monitored by well-resourced, independent organizations.

[EN] Success in all sorts of situations is the most classical interpretation of general intelligence. Under limited resources, however, the capability of an agent must necessarily be limited too, and generality needs to be understood as comprehensive performance up to a level of difficulty. The degree of generality then refers to the way an agent's capability is distributed as a function of task difficulty. This dissects the notion of general intelligence into two non-populational measures, generality and capability, which we apply to individuals and groups of humans, other animals and AI systems, on several cognitive and perceptual tests. Our results indicate that generality and capability can decouple at the individual level: very specialised agents can show high capability and vice versa. The metrics also decouple at the population level, and we rarely see diminishing returns in generality for those groups of high capability. We relate the individual measure of generality to traditional notions of general intelligence and cognitive efficiency in humans, collectives, non-human animals and machines. The choice of the difficulty function now plays a prominent role in this new conception of generality, which brings a quantitative tool for shedding light on long-standing questions about the evolution of general intelligence and the evaluation of progress in Artificial General Intelligence., We are grateful to Jim DiCarlo and his lab (http://dicarlolab.mit.edu/, MIT), Judith Burkart, Laura Damerius and Carel van Schaik (Universitat Zurich), and Katherine Bruce and Mark Galizio (UNC Wilmington), for their data and the very helpful discussions. We thank David Stillwell for suggesting the relation between person-fit metrics and an early version of generality, and Heinrich Peters for pointing out Guttman's model. JHO has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and Spanish MINECO grant RTI2018-094403-B-C32 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by "ERDF A way of making Europe", Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROMETEO/2019/098 and EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 952215 (TAILOR). JHO and SOH are funded by the Future of Life Institute, FLI, under grant RFP2-152. JHO and LC are funded by US DARPA HR00112120007 (RECoG-AI). LC and SOH are funded by the Leverhulme Trust through a grant for the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence. FMP is funded by the AI-Watch and HUMAINT projects by DG CONNECT and DG JRC of the European Commission. All authors declare no competing interests. We thank John Burden, Richard Evans and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and corrections. Code and data are available for reproducibility at http://github.com/jorallo/gener ality as explained in G.

BackgroundAdolescence can be a challenging time, characterized by self-consciousness, heightened regard for peer acceptance, and fear of rejection. Interpersonal concerns are amplified by unpredictable social interactions, both online and offline. This developmental and social context is potentially conducive to the emergence of paranoia. However, research on paranoia during adolescence is scarce.MethodOur aim was to examine the prevalence, structure, and probabilistic causal mechanisms of adolescent paranoia. A representative school cohort of 801 adolescents (11–15 y) completed measures of paranoia and a range of affective, cognitive, and social factors. A Bayesian approach with Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) was used to assess the causal interactions with paranoia.ResultsParanoid thoughts were very common, followed a continuous distribution, and were hierarchically structured. There was an overall paranoia factor, with sub-factors of social fears, physical threat fears, and conspiracy concerns. With all other variables controlled, DAG analysis identified paranoia had dependent relationships with negative affect, peer difficulties, bullying, and cognitive-affective responses to social media. The causal directions could not be fully determined, but it was more likely that negative affect contributed to paranoia and paranoia impacted peer relationships. Problematic social media use did not causally influence paranoia.ConclusionsThere is a continuum of paranoia in adolescence and occasional suspicions are common at this age. Anxiety and depression are closely connected with paranoia and may causally contribute to its development. Paranoia may negatively impact adolescent peer relationships. The clinical significance of paranoia in adolescents accessing mental health services must now be established.

BackgroundThe Green et al., Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS) – comprising two 16-item scales assessing ideas of reference (Part A) and ideas of persecution (Part B) – was developed over a decade ago. Our aim was to conduct the first large-scale psychometric evaluation.MethodsIn total, 10 551 individuals provided GPTS data. Four hundred and twenty-two patients with psychosis and 805 non-clinical individuals completed GPTS Parts A and B. An additional 1743 patients with psychosis and 7581 non-clinical individuals completed GPTS Part B. Factor analysis, item response theory, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were conducted.ResultsThe original two-factor structure of the GPTS had an inadequate model fit: Part A did not form a unidimensional scale and multiple items were locally dependant. A Revised-GPTS (R-GPTS) was formed, comprising eight-item ideas of reference and 10-item ideas of persecution subscales, which had an excellent model fit. All items in the new Reference (a = 2.09–3.67) and Persecution (a = 2.37–4.38) scales were strongly discriminative of shifts in paranoia and had high reliability across the spectrum of severity (a > 0.90). The R-GPTS score ranges are: average (Reference: 0–9; Persecution: 0–4); elevated (Reference: 10–15; Persecution: 5–10); moderately severe (Reference: 16–20; Persecution:11–17); severe (Reference: 21–24; Persecution: 18–27); and very severe (Reference: 25+; Persecution: 28+). Recommended cut-offs on the persecution scale are 11 to discriminate clinical levels of persecutory ideation and 18 for a likely persecutory delusion.ConclusionsThe psychometric evaluation indicated a need to improve the GPTS. The R-GPTS is a more precise measure, has excellent psychometric properties, and is recommended for future studies of paranoia.

Background Precise assessment tools for psychotic experiences in young people may help identify symptoms early and facilitate advances in treatment. In this study we provide an exemplar - with a paranoia scale for youth – for improving measurement precision for psychotic experiences using item response theory (IRT). We evaluate the psychometric properties of the new measure, test for measurement invariance, and assess its potential for computerised adaptive testing (CAT). Method The 18-item Bird Checklist of Adolescent Paranoia (B-CAP) was completed by 1102 adolescents including 301 patients with mental health problems and 801 from the general population. After excluding outliers (n = 10), IRT was used to examine item properties, test reliability, and measurement invariance. The properties of an adaptive B-CAP were assessed using a simulation of 10,000 responses. Results All B-CAP items were highly discriminative (a = 1.14–2.77), whereby small shifts in paranoia led to a higher probability of item endorsement. Test reliability was high (a > 0.90) across a wide range of paranoia severity (θ = −0.45–3.36), with the greatest precision at elevated levels. All items were invariant for gender, age, and population groups. The simulated adaptive B-CAP performed with high accuracy and required only 5–6 items at higher levels of paranoia severity. Conclusions The B-CAP is a reliable assessment tool with excellent psychometric properties to assess both non-clinical and clinical levels of paranoia in young people, with potential as an efficient adaptive test. In future, these approaches could be used to develop a multidimensional CAT to assess the full range of psychotic experiences in youth.

Summary Background The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme depends on mass participation: the greater the number of people vaccinated, the less risk to the population. Concise, persuasive messaging is crucial, particularly given substantial levels of vaccine hesitancy in the UK. Our aim was to test which types of written information about COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to a statement of efficacy and safety, might increase vaccine acceptance. Methods For this single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to recruit 15 000 adults in the UK, who were quota sampled to be representative. Participants were randomly assigned equally across ten information conditions stratified by level of vaccine acceptance (willing, doubtful, or strongly hesitant). The control information condition comprised the safety and effectiveness statement taken from the UK National Health Service website; the remaining conditions addressed collective benefit, personal benefit, seriousness of the pandemic, and safety concerns. After online provision of vaccination information, participants completed the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (outcome measure; score range 7–35) and the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale (mediation measure). The primary outcome was willingness to be vaccinated. Participants were analysed in the groups they were allocated. p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN37254291. Findings From Jan 19 to Feb 5, 2021, 15 014 adults were recruited. Vaccine hesitancy had reduced from 26·9% the previous year to 16·9%, so recruitment was extended to Feb 18 to recruit 3841 additional vaccine-hesitant adults. 12 463 (66·1%) participants were classified as willing, 2932 (15·6%) as doubtful, and 3460 (18·4%) as strongly hesitant (ie, report that they will avoid being vaccinated for as long as possible or will never get vaccinated). Information conditions did not alter COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in those willing or doubtful (adjusted p values >0·70). In those strongly hesitant, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reduced, in comparison to the control condition, by personal benefit information (mean difference –1·49, 95% CI –2·16 to –0·82; adjusted p=0·0015), directly addressing safety concerns about speed of development (−0·91, –1·58 to –0·23; adjusted p=0·0261), and a combination of all information (−0·86, –1·53 to –0·18; adjusted p=0·0313). In those strongly hesitant, provision of personal benefit information reduced hesitancy to a greater extent than provision of information on the collective benefit of not personally getting ill (−0·97, 95% CI –1·64 to –0·30; adjusted p=0·0165) or the collective benefit of not transmitting the virus (−1·01, –1·68 to –0·35; adjusted p=0·0150). Ethnicity and gender were found to moderate information condition outcomes. Interpretation In the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, provision of information on personal benefit reduces hesitancy to a greater extent than information on collective benefits. Where perception of risk from vaccines is most salient, decision making becomes centred on the personal. As such, messaging that stresses the counterbalancing personal benefits is likely to prove most effective. The messaging from this study could be used in public health communications. Going forwards, the study highlights the need for future health campaigns to engage with the public on the terrain that is most salient to them. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Purpose: Evaluate efficiency, precision, and validity of RetCAT, which comprises ten diabetic retinopathy (DR) quality of life (QoL) computerized adaptive tests (CATs). Methods: In this cross-sectional clinical study, 183 English and/or Mandarin-speaking participants with DR (mean age ± standard deviation [SD] 56.4 ± 11.9 years; 38% proliferative DR [worse eye]) were recruited from retinal clinics in Singapore. Participants answered the RetCAT tests (Symptoms, Activity Limitation, Mobility, Emotional, Health Concerns, Social, Convenience, Economic, Driving, and Lighting), which were capped at seven items each, and other questionnaires, and underwent eye tests. Our primary evaluation focused on RetCAT efficiency (i.e. standard error of measurement [SEM] ± SD achieved and time needed to complete each CAT). Secondary evaluations included an assessment of RetCAT's test precision and validity Results: Mean SEM across all RetCAT tests was 0.351, ranging from 0.272 ± 0.130 for Economic to 0.484 ± 0.130 for Emotional. Four tests (Mobility, Social, Convenience, and Driving) had a high level of measurement error. The median time to take each RetCAT test was 1.79 minutes, ranging from 1.12 (IQR [interquartile range] 1.63) for Driving to 3.28 (IQR 2.52) for Activity Limitation. Test precision was highest for participants at the most impaired end of the spectrum. Most RetCAT tests displayed expected correlations with other scales (convergent/divergent validity) and were sensitive to DR and/or vision impairment severity levels (criterion validity) Conclusions: RetCAT can provide efficient, precise, and valid measurement of DR-related QoL impact. Future application of RetCAT will employ a stopping rule based on SE rather than number of items to ensure that all tests can detect meaningful differences in person abilities. Responsiveness of RetCAT to treatment interventions must also be determined Translational Relevance: RetCAT may be useful for measuring the patient-centered impact of DR severity and disease progression and evaluating the effectiveness of new therapies Refereed/Peer-reviewed