Search

Background: The media have played an important part in presenting arguments for and against vaccination. The potential for the media to influence public attitudes to vaccines is becoming increasingly crucial to address., Methods: To understand the differing roles and responsibilities in the communication of vaccine trials we draw insight from a retrospective study of 349 survey responses and 102 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2020 with participants in the United Kingdom's first-in-human clinical trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine., Results: We found that trial participants had mixed views as to whether their participation conferred responsibility to communicate more widely about their trial experiences. Some participants perceived themselves to have an altruistic obligation to communicate to the media about the trial, and others felt that those who did share their participation had 'attention-seeking' motives. When participants did speak out they preferred to do so anonymously. Frustration was also reported with sensationalised and false media stories. Social media was viewed as a means to accelerate misinformation or as a force for recruitment and public education about trials. Participants were pleased to see trial investigators and trial team playing prominent roles in the media and this instilled confidence in the vaccine and the trial. We discuss these evolving roles and responsibilities for trial communication, concentrating on the views of participants about experiences, opportunities, and risks., Conclusions: We argue that the pandemic has demonstrated the need for clinical trials to be made more transparent as a scientific practice that requires better public understanding and engagement. For high-profile vaccine trials we recommend; (1) explicit and comprehensive guidance aimed at all participants for interactions with the media; (2) prioritising having open and effectively expressed accounts of trial composition, processes, and participation; (3) offering support and a direct communication channel for journalists to report trials by utilising internal press officers to engage with journalists., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors except SV have worked or are currently working on the UK clinical trials of the SARS-COV-2 candidate vaccine; ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. AJP is the chief investigator of these clinical trials., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe the development, validation and reliability of the Oxford Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (OVHS), a new instrument to assess vaccine hesitancy in the general population., Design: Cross-sectional validation study., Setting: Internet-based study with participants in the UK and USA., Participants: Demographically representative (stratified by age, sex and race) samples from the UK and USA recruited through the Prolific Academic platform., Main Outcome Measures: To demonstrate OVHS development, exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation on the UK sample was performed. Confirmatory factor analysis with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating goodness of fit statistics including the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI) was performed on the US sample. Reliability as internal consistency was assessed using McDonald's omega. Evidence in support of the predictive, convergent and discriminant validity of the scale was assessed using logistic regression ORs of association (OR) or Pearson correlation coefficients., Results: Data for factor analysis were obtained from 1004 respondents, 504 in the UK and 500 in the USA. A scree plot, minimum average partial correlation analysis and parallel analysis suggested a three-factor 13-item scale with domains of vaccine beliefs (seven items), pain (three items) and personal deliberation (three items). Responses were recorded on a Likert scale ranging from disagree completely to agree completely, with higher score reflecting greater hesitancy. Potential total scores ranged from 13 to 65. Goodness of fit was excellent, with RMSEA=0.044, SRMR=0.041 and CFI=0.977. Predictive validity for COVID-19 vaccination status was excellent, with logistic regression ORs of association (95% CI) of 0.07 (0.04, 0.13), p<0.0001 for the UK sample for each SD increase in OVHS score, suggesting a 93% decrease in the odds of being vaccinated against COVID-19 for each SD increase in OVHS score. Convergent validity between the OVHS score and the 5C short version scale demonstrated a correlation coefficient of 0.32 (p<0.0001). Discriminant validity with an unrelated desire to perform outdoor activities demonstrated an OR (95% CI) of 1.06 (0.88, 1.29), p=0.523 for the UK sample for each SD increase in OVHS score. McDonald's omega was 0.86 and 0.87 in the UK and US samples, respectively., Conclusions: The OVHS is a feasible, valid and reliable scale for assessing vaccine hesitancy; further testing is warranted., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Qualitative data provides deep insights into an individual's behaviors and beliefs, and the contextual factors that may shape these. Big qualitative data analysis is an emerging field that aims to identify trends and patterns in large qualitative datasets. The purpose of this review was to identify the methods used to analyse large bodies of qualitative data, their cited strengths and limitations and comparisons between manual and digital analysis approaches., Methods: A multifaceted approach has been taken to develop the review relying on academic, gray and media-based literature, using approaches such as iterative analysis, frequency analysis, text network analysis and team discussion., Results: The review identified 520 articles that detailed analysis approaches of big qualitative data. From these publications a diverse range of methods and software used for analysis were identified, with thematic analysis and basic software being most common. Studies were most commonly conducted in high-income countries, and the most common data sources were open-ended survey responses, interview transcripts, and first-person narratives., Discussion: We identified an emerging trend to expand the sources of qualitative data (e.g., using social media data, images, or videos), and develop new methods and software for analysis. As the qualitative analysis field may continue to change, it will be necessary to conduct further research to compare the utility of different big qualitative analysis methods and to develop standardized guidelines to raise awareness and support researchers in the use of more novel approaches for big qualitative analysis., Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/hbvsy/?view&#95;only=., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Chandrasekar, Clark, Martin, Vanderslott, Flores, Aceituno, Barnett, Vindrola-Padros and Vera San Juan.)

Whilst many lessons were learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing reflection is needed to develop and maintain preparedness for future outbreaks. Within the field of infectious disease and public health there remain silos and hierarchies in interdisciplinary work, with the risk that humanities and social sciences remain on the epistemological peripheries. However, these disciplines offer insights, expertise and tools that contribute to understanding responses to disease and uptake of interventions for prevention and treatment. In this Perspective, using examples from our own cross-disciplinary research and engagement programme on vaccine hesitancy in South Africa and the United Kingdom (UK), we propose closer integration of expertise, research and methods from humanities and social sciences into pandemic preparedness., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Frampton, Orievulu, Matthews, Giubilini, Hordern, Burns, Elias, Friederich, Majozi, Martin, Stevenson, Vanderslott and Seeley.)

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the fragility of immunisation programmes and resulted in a significant reduction in vaccination rates, with increasing vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks consequently reported. These vulnerabilities underscore the importance of resilient immunisation programmes to ensure optimal performance during crises. To date, a framework for assessing immunisation programme resilience does not exist. We conducted a scoping review of immunisation programmes during times of crisis to identify factors that characterise resilient immunisation programmes, which may inform an Immunisation Programme Resilience Tool., Design: Scoping review design followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework, and manuscript reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews guidelines., Data Sources: CINAHL, CENTRAL, Embase, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science and databases were searched between 1 January 2011 and 2 September 2023. Citation searching of identified studies was also performed., Eligibility Criteria: We included primary empirical peer-reviewed studies that discussed the resilience of immunisation programme to crises, shocks or disruptions., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers screened records and performed data extraction. We extracted data on study location and design, crisis description, and resilience characteristics discussed, and identified evidence gaps in the literature. Findings were synthesised using tabulation and an evidence gap map., Results: Thirty-seven studies met the eligibility criteria. These studies captured research conducted across six continents, with most concentrated in Africa, Asia and Europe. One study had a randomised controlled trial design, while 36 studies had observational designs (15 analytical and 21 descriptive). We identified five characteristics of resilient immunisation programmes drawing on the Health System Resilience Index (Integration, Awareness, Resource Availability and Access, Adaptiveness and Self-regulation) and several evidence gaps in the literature., Conclusions: To our knowledge, no immunisation programme resilience tool exists. We identified factors from the Health System Resilience Index coupled with factors identified through primary empirical evidence, which may inform development of an immunisation programme resilience tool., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LH, AlB, ALE and RM are current employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, New Jersey, USA and may hold equity interest in Merck & Co. MN was an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA and shareholder of Merck & Co. when the study was performed. LB, RS, MPC and AoB were compensated for activities related to execution of the study. SV declares no competing interests. No other disclosures were reported., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Adult and adolescent migrants worldwide, and those arriving in Europe, are an under-immunised group for routine vaccinations due to missed childhood vaccines and doses in their countries of origin, and their subsequent marginalisation from health and vaccination systems. Declining population-level coverage for routine vaccines across Europe, which has accelerated post-pandemic, places these and other under-immunised populations at even greater risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. However, despite clear guidelines around the importance of delivering 'catch-up' vaccination throughout the life-course, migrants are rarely effectively incorporated into routine vaccination programmes on arrival to Europe. These populations have subsequently been involved in outbreaks, including measles and diphtheria, and are missing opportunities to receive more recently introduced vaccines such as HPV to align them with European vaccine schedules. WHO's new Immunization Agenda 2030 places a renewed emphasis on equitable access to vaccine systems and integrating catch-up vaccination for missed vaccines and doses throughout the life-course. In addition, lessons learned and innovations from the COVID-19 pandemic merit further consideration in the design and delivery of more inclusive vaccination programmes. We describe current gaps in policy and practice around life-course vaccination in migrant populations, key factors that drive low vaccine uptake and coverage, and explore the benefits of participatory approaches to designing and delivering interventions with impacted communities, to define new strategies to advance vaccine equity across the Region., Competing Interests: All authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Objectives: Identifying whether a country is ready to deploy a new vaccine or improve uptake of an existing vaccine requires knowledge of a diverse range of interdependent, context-specific factors. This scoping review aims to identify common themes that emerge across articles, which include tools or guidance that can be used to establish whether a country is ready to deploy a new vaccine or increase uptake of an underutilised vaccine., Design: Scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews guidelines., Data Sources: Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched for articles published until 9 September 2023. Relevant articles were also identified through expert opinion., Eligibility Criteria: Articles published in any year or language that included tools or guidance to identify factors that influence a country's readiness to deploy a new or underutilised vaccine., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers screened records and performed data extraction. Findings were synthesised by conducting a thematic analysis., Results: 38 articles met our inclusion criteria; these documents were created using methodologies including expert review panels and Delphi surveys and varied in terms of content and context-of-use. 12 common themes were identified relevant to a country's readiness to deploy a new or underutilised vaccine. These themes were as follows: (1) legal, political and professional consensus; (2) sociocultural factors and communication; (3) policy, guidelines and regulations; (4) financing; (5) vaccine characteristics and supply logistics; (6) programme planning; (7) programme monitoring and evaluation; (8) sustainable and integrated healthcare provision; (9) safety surveillance and reporting; (10) disease burden and characteristics; (11) vaccination equity and (12) human resources and training of professionals., Conclusions: This information has the potential to form the basis of a globally applicable evidence-based vaccine readiness assessment tool that can inform policy and immunisation programme decision-makers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LH, AE, AL, RM and AlB are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and potentially own stock and/or hold stock options in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors confirm that they have no conflicts or competing interests in contributing to this manuscript.

In early 2020, adult volunteers were invited to participate in a first-in-human trial of the COVID-19 vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in the United Kingdom (UK) at the height of the global pandemic when there was uncertainty regarding vaccine efficacy and side-effects. We conducted a retrospective survey of these uniquely situated individuals to gain insight into their views about the risks, motivations, and expectations of the trial and potential vaccine deployment. Our data from 349 respondents show that these volunteers were educated to a high-level with a clear understanding of the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as an appreciation of the role of science and research in developing a vaccine to address this global problem. Individuals were primarily motivated with altruistic intent and expressed a desire to contribute to the scientific effort. Respondents appreciated that their participation was associated with risk but appeared comfortable that this risk was low. Through our analysis, we highlight these individuals as a group with strong levels of trust in science and a sense of societal responsibility, and therefore are a potential valuable resource to improve confidence in novel vaccines. Vaccine trial participants could offer a credible collective voice to support positive messaging around vaccination.

Objectives: To develop and validate the Oxford Needle Experience (ONE) scale, an instrument to assess needle fear, attitudes and expectations in the general population., Design: Cross-sectional validation study., Setting: Internet-based with participants in the UK and USA., Participants: UK and US representative samples stratified by age, sex, and ethnicity using the Prolific Academic platform., Main Outcome Measures: Exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation on the UK sample for the ONE scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI) on the US sample. Reliability as internal consistency using McDonald's omega. Convergent validity using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Predictive and discriminant validity using logistic regression ORs of association (OR)., Results: The population included 1000 respondents, 500 in the UK and 500 in the USA. Minimum average partial correlation and a scree plot suggested four factors should be retained: injection hesitancy, blood-related hesitancy, recalled negative experiences and perceived benefits, yielding a 19-question scale. On CFA, the RMSEA was 0.070 (90% CI, 0.064 to 0.077), SRMR 0.053 and CFI 0.925. McDonald's omega was 0.92 and 0.93 in the UK and US samples, respectively. Convergent validity with the four-item Oxford Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes and Narratives Survey (OCEANS) needle fear scale demonstrated a strong correlation (r=0.83). Predictive validity with a single-question COVID-19 vaccination status question demonstrated a strong association, OR (95% CI) 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98), p<0.0001 in the US sample. Discriminant validity with a question regarding the importance of controlling what enters the body confirmed the ONE score does not predict this unrelated outcome, OR 1.00 (0.99, 1.01), p=0.996 in the US sample., Conclusions: The ONE scale is a reliable and valid multidimensional scale that may be useful in predicting vaccine hesitancy, designing public health interventions to improve vaccine uptake and exploring alternatives to needles for medical procedures., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

This paper explores vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the UK, where different COVID-19 vaccines were being rolled out through a national vaccination campaign from 2020 to 2022, consisting of a first and second dose programme. Through a mixed-method approach using qualitative discourse analysis and network analysis of Twitter data, we assessed HCW perceptions and views about the administration and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines in the United Kingdom (UK). We were also interested in exploring HCWs' personal experiences and attitudes towards taking COVID-19 vaccines themselves. We drew upon sociology, ethics, communication studies and used research methods concentrating on social media and media analysis. By employing the '5C framework' of 'confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility' we evaluated a longitudinal selection of tweets to capture relevant factors driving vaccination views and behaviours among HCWs. We found differing positions expressed about COVID-19 vaccines and policy during the first dose compared with the second, through a drop in confidence compounded by supply and access issues, as well the news of a vaccine mandate for HCWs by the UK government in 2021. HCWs asked calculation questions to the community or brought forward competing pieces of information about vaccine policy and guidelines. Constraint levels in access issues were noted, especially for those with work and caregiving responsibilities, and student nurses found they did not have equal vaccination access. HCWs also displayed collective responsibility on social platforms to both encourage vaccination and express concerns through the organisation of social action against vaccine mandates., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on fractures in health care systems worldwide and continues to have a significant impact, particularly in relation to the health care workforce. Frontline staff have been exposed to unprecedented strain, and delivering care during the pandemic has affected their safety, mental health, and well-being., Objective: This study aimed to explore the experiences of health care workers (HCWs) delivering care in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand their well-being needs, experiences, and strategies used to maintain well-being (at individual and organizational levels)., Methods: We analyzed 94 telephone interviews with HCWs and 2000 tweets about HCWs' mental health during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: The results were grouped under 6 themes: redeployment, clinical work, and sense of duty; well-being support and HCW's coping strategies; negative mental health effects; organizational support; social network and support; and public and government support., Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the need for open conversations, where staff's well-being needs and the strategies they adopted can be shared and encouraged, rather than implementing top-down psychological interventions alone. At the macro level, the findings also highlighted the impact on HCW's well-being of public and government support as well as the need to ensure protection through personal protective equipment, testing, and vaccines for frontline workers., (©Norha Vera San Juan, Sam Martin, Anna Badley, Laura Maio, Petra C Gronholm, Caroline Buck, Elaine C Flores, Samantha Vanderslott, Aron Syversen, Sophie Mulcahy Symmons, Inayah Uddin, Amelia Karia, Syka Iqbal, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.08.2023.)

Preclinical (animal) testing and human testing of drugs and vaccines are rarely considered by social scientists side by side. Where this is done, it is typically for theoretically exploring the ethics of the two situations to compare relative treatment. In contrast, we empirically explore how human clinical trial participants understand the role of animal test subjects in vaccine development. Furthermore, social science research has only concentrated on broad public opinion and the views of patients about animal research, whereas we explore the views of a public group particularly implicated in pharmaceutical development: experimental subjects . We surveyed and interviewed COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK, on their views about taking part in a vaccine trial and the role of animals in trials. We found that trial participants mirrored assumptions about legitimate reasons for animal testing embedded in regulation and provided insight into (i) the nuances of public opinion on animal research; (ii) the co-production of human and animal experimental subjects; (iii) how vaccine and medicine testing, and the motivations and demographics of clinical trial participants, change in an outbreak; and (iv) what public involvement can offer to science., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Historically, typhoid control has been achieved with water and sanitation interventions. Today, in an era of rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR), two World Health Organization-prequalified vaccines are available to accelerate control in the shorter term. Meanwhile, water and sanitation interventions could be implemented in the longer term to sustainably prevent typhoid in low- and middle-income countries. This article first approaches typhoid control from a historical perspective, subsequently presents how vaccination could complement water and sanitation activities, and finally discusses the challenges and opportunities for impactful control of typhoid infection. It also addresses data blind spots and knowledge gaps to focus on for typhoid control and to ultimately progress towards elimination. This article presents a synthesis of discussions held in December 2021 during a roundtable session at the "12th International Conference on Typhoid and Other Invasive Salmonelloses"., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: No reported conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: When 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., Methods: In 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., Results: In 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 = <0.001 and injection fears, 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., Conclusions: Across 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.

Protests starting in the summer of 2020, notedly in the US and UK, have brought together two constituencies: pre-existing anti-vaccine groups and newly formed oppositional COVID-19 groups. The oppositional COVID-19 groups vary in composition and nature, but the central focus is a disagreement about the seriousness and threat of COVID-19 and with the public health measures to control COVID-19. What unites many disparate interests is an aversion to mandates. The compulsion to undertake particular public health activities such as mask-wearing and vaccination is a complex topic of public attitudes and beliefs alongside public health goals and messaging. We aim to analyse social media discussions about facemask wearing and the adoption of potential vaccines for COVID-19. Using media monitoring software Meltwater TM , we analyse English-language tweets for one year from 1st June 2020 until 1st June 2021. We pay particular attention to connections in conversations between key topics of concern regarding masks and vaccines across social media networks. We track where ideas and activist behaviours towards both health interventions have originated, have similarities, and how they have changed over time. Our aim is to provide an overview of the key trends and themes of discussion concerning attitudes to and adoption of health measures in the control of COVID-19 and how publics react when confronted with mandatory policies. We draw on an already extensive literature about mandatory vaccination policies to inform our assessment, from psychology and behavioural science to ethics, political theory, sociology, and public policy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision., Methods: A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships., Results: 71.7% ( n =3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% ( n =849) were very unsure, and 11.7% ( n =598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' ( r =0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' ( r =-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines., Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

The notion of an 'ignorant public' is attributed in outbreak scenarios through vaccination narratives that are institutionally reinforced by governments and the media across different contexts. The ignorant public narrative is a discursive shift that reduces public concerns about vaccines to a lack of knowledge, obscuring how these concerns are indicative of mistrust and anxiety or efforts to counter the dominance of acceptable and legitimate knowledge. This narrative risks a deflection of challenges in the structural determinants of vaccine uptake and depoliticise rumours and mistrust that arise during vaccination campaigns. Examples from Sierra Leone, Uganda, and India show how 'ignorant public' framings are used as explanation for vaccine hesitancy through assigned roles for institutions and publics, and the consequences this narrative has for vaccination encounters. These examples are based on ethnographic fieldwork and media analysis carried out before, during, and after outbreaks, of newly introduced vaccines for both human and animal health. Drawing on science communication and development studies, we show how this narrative then positions governmental concern about vaccine hesitancy as being a (largely) imagined issue of public ignorance. We argue that when institutions tasked with strengthening vaccine uptake see public ignorance as the key problem, this can obscure other problems, such as competing interests and experiences, and also minority group treatment. As a result, public governance is rationalised by assigning the ignorance label to certain public groups that stand in contrast to scientific and government expertise, and so accountability for low vaccine uptake is transferred onto the public., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Manual scavengers, or 'Safai Karamcharis', as they are known in India, are sanitation workers who manually clean human waste for a living and face considerable occupational health risks. They are subject to deep-seated, caste-based stigma associated with their perceived 'caste impurity' and lack of cleanliness, which result both in consistently dangerous substandard working conditions and lack of social mobility, with women facing greater hardships. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated their plight. Despite the considerable efforts of social advocates, organised movements and government institutions, reforms and criminalisation have produced mixed results and campaigners remain divided on whether banning manual scavenging is an effective solution. This article reviews the history of attempts to address scavenging in India. Starting in the colonial period and ending with the current government's Swachh Bharat Mission, it highlights how attempts to deal with scavenging via quick-fix solutions like legal bans criminalising their employment, infrastructure upgrades or paternalistic interventions have either failed to resolve issues or exacerbated scavengers' situation by pushing long-standing problems out of view. It argues that meaningful progress depends on abandoning top-down modes of decision-making, addressing the underlying sociocultural and infrastructural factors that perpetuate the ill health and social conditions of manual scavengers, collecting data on the true extent of scavenging, and investing in and providing political agency to communities themselves., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: While there is research relating to perceptions of vaccines among healthcare workers (HCWs), the evidence base in relation to COVID-19 remains limited. The aim of this study was to explore HCWs' perceptions and attitudes towards vaccines and the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the UK, including their expectations and views on promoting vaccination to others., Design: This study was designed as a rapid qualitative appraisal, integrating data from a review of UK policies and guidance on COVID-19 vaccination with data from in-depth semistructured telephone interviews with frontline HCWs in the UK. Data were analysed using framework analysis., Participants: Interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of HCWs from two large London-based hospital Trusts (n=24) and 24 government policies, and guidelines on the vaccination programme were reviewed., Results: The level of uncertainty about the long-term safety of vaccines and efficacy against mutant strains made it difficult for HCWs to balance the benefits against the risks of vaccination. HCWs felt that government decisions on vaccine rollout had not been supported by evidence-based science, and this impacted their level of trust and confidence in the programme. The spread of misinformation online also impacted HCWs' attitudes towards vaccination, particularly among junior level and black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) HCWs. Most HCWs felt encouraged to promote vaccination to their patients, and the majority said they would advocate vaccination or engage in conversations about vaccination with others when relevant., Conclusion: In order to improve HCWs' trust and confidence in the UK's COVID-19 vaccination programme, there needs to be clarity about what is known and not known about the vaccines and transparency around the evidence-base supporting government decisions on vaccine rollout. Effort is also needed to dispel the spread of vaccine-related misinformation online and to address specific concerns, particularly among BAME and junior-level HCWs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This paper examines the impact of disruptions to the organisation and delivery of healthcare services and efforts to re-order care through emotion management during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Framing care as an affective practice, studying healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences enables better understanding of how interactions between staff, patients and families changed as a result of the pandemic. Using a rapid qualitative research methodology, we conducted interviews with frontline HCWs in two London hospitals during the peak of the first wave of the pandemic and sourced public accounts of HCWs' experiences of the pandemic from social media (YouTube and Twitter). We conducted framework analysis to identify key factors disrupting caring interactions. Fear of infection and the barriers of physical distancing acted to separate staff from patients and families, requiring new affective practices to repair connections. Witnessing suffering was distressing for staff, and providing a 'good death' for patients and communicating care to families was harder. In addition to caring for patients and families, HCWs cared for each other. Infection control measures were important for limiting the spread of COVID-19 but disrupted connections that were integral to care, generating new work to re-order interactions., (© 2021 Foundation for Sociology of Health & Illness.)

Background: Vaccine nationalism has become a key topic of discussion during the development, testing, and rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. Media attention has highlighted the ways that global, coordinated access to vaccines has been limited during the pandemic. It has also exposed how some countries have secured vaccine supply, through bilateral purchase agreements and the way pharmaceutical companies have priced, negotiated, and delivered these supplies. Much of the focus of this debate has been on the vaccine supply 'winners' and 'losers', but the voices of public opinion have been more limited., Methods: We explore the concepts of vaccine nationalism and internationalism from the perspective of vaccine trial participants, using an empirical perspectives study that involved interviews with phase I/II COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK. We surveyed and interviewed participants between September and October 2020 about their views, motivations and experiences in taking part in the trial., Results: First, we show how trial participants describe national and international ideas about vaccination as intertwined and challenge claims that these positions are mutually exclusive or oppositional. Second, we analyse these viewpoints further to show that vaccine nationalism is closely connected with national pride and metaphors of a country's scientific achievements. Participants held a global outlook and were highly supportive of the prioritisation of vaccines by global need, but many were also pessimistic that such a solution could be possible., Conclusion: Trial participants constitute an informed public group, with situated public expertise that the global community could draw on as an expert opinion. We argue that vaccine nationalism is strongly attached to national character and, therefore, it is more difficult for ownership of a vaccine to be though of as international., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors except SV have worked or are currently working on the UK clinical trials of the SARS-COV-2 candidate vaccine; ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. AJP is the chief investigator of these clinical trials., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Measuring public response during COVID-19 is an important way of ensuring the suitability and effectiveness of epidemic response efforts. An analysis of social media provides an approximation of public sentiment during an emergency like the current pandemic. The measures introduced across the globe to help curtail the spread of the coronavirus have led to the development of a situation labeled as a "perfect storm," triggering a wave of domestic violence. As people use social media to communicate their experiences, analyzing public discourse and sentiment on social platforms offers a way to understand concerns and issues related to domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic., Objective: This study was based on an analysis of public discourse and sentiment related to domestic violence during the stay-at-home periods of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia in 2020. It aimed to understand the more personal self-reported experiences, emotions, and reactions toward domestic violence that were not always classified or collected by official public bodies during the pandemic., Methods: We searched social media and news posts in Australia using key terms related to domestic violence and COVID-19 during 2020 via digital analytics tools to determine sentiments related to domestic violence during this period., Results: The study showed that the use of sentiment and discourse analysis to assess social media data is useful in measuring the public expression of feelings and sharing of resources in relation to the otherwise personal experience of domestic violence. There were a total of 63,800 posts across social media and news media. Within these posts, our analysis found that domestic violence was mentioned an average of 179 times a day. There were 30,100 tweets, 31,700 news reports, 1500 blog posts, 548 forum posts, and 7 comments (posted on news and blog websites). Negative or neutral sentiment centered on the sharp rise in domestic violence during different lockdown periods of the 2020 pandemic, and neutral and positive sentiments centered on praise for efforts that raised awareness of domestic violence as well as the positive actions of domestic violence charities and support groups in their campaigns. There were calls for a positive and proactive handling (rather than a mishandling) of the pandemic, and results indicated a high level of public discontent related to the rising rates of domestic violence and the lack of services during the pandemic., Conclusions: This study provided a timely understanding of public sentiment related to domestic violence during the COVID-19 lockdown periods in Australia using social media analysis. Social media represents an important avenue for the dissemination of information; posts can be widely dispersed and easily accessed by a range of different communities who are often difficult to reach. An improved understanding of these issues is important for future policy direction. Heightened awareness of this could help agencies tailor and target messaging to maximize impact., (©Kim Usher, Joanne Durkin, Sam Martin, Samantha Vanderslott, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Luke Usher, Debra Jackson. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 01.10.2021.)

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests.

Mandatory childhood vaccination is becoming an increasingly important policy intervention for governments trying to address low vaccination rates. Mandates require vaccination for a certain purpose, most commonly related to school entry for children. However, the discussion surrounding the extent and impact of mandatory vaccination programmes for babies and children have largely been limited to high-income countries. While many recent publications discuss the issue, they have not been inclusive of low- and middle-income countries. This paper thus presents a comprehensive and updatable database of mandatory childhood vaccination policies worldwide, covering 149 countries. The list indicates whether a country has a mandatory vaccination policy and the strictness of the mandate on a scale ranging across three levels of mandatory, mandatory for school entry or recommended. It draws on extensive desk-based research analysing a variety of sources, supplemented by consultations with experts from various health authorities. The paper provides an overview of the state of mandatory childhood vaccination across different World Health Organization (WHO) regions and with country case studies, setting out the general trends and issues, and engages with a discussion about why, how, and where mandatory vaccination is put in place. Our findings show in-country variation in vaccination policy and a variation between vaccination in policy compared to in practice. We observe, particularly for high-income countries, that the occurrence of recent outbreaks is a major factor for the introduction of mandatory vaccination. Also, many low- and middle- income countries have resorted to mandatory vaccination policies because of a lack of other policy options yet still have lower than targeted vaccination rates due to problems with vaccine supply, delivery, and access. Offering comparisons between countries will provide a useful tool for government decision-makers considering the merits of mandatory vaccination., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AJP is Chair of UK Department Health and Social Care's Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation, but does not participate in discussions on COVID-19 vaccines, and is a member of the WHO's SAGE. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for the development of a coronavirus vaccine. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: During infectious epidemics, healthcare workers are required to deliver traditional care while facing new pressures. Time and resource restrictions, a focus on saving lives and new safety measures can lead to traditional aspects of care delivery being neglected., Aim: Identify barriers to delivering end-of-life care, describe attempts to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and understand the impact this had on staff., Design: A rapid appraisal was conducted incorporating a rapid review of policies from the United Kingdom, semi-structured telephone interviews with healthcare workers, and a review of mass print media news stories and social media posts describing healthcare worker's experiences of delivering care during the pandemic. Data were coded and analysed using framework analysis., Setting/participants: From a larger ongoing study, 22 interviews which mentioned death or caring for patients at end-of-life, eight government and National Health Service policies affecting end-of-life care delivery, eight international news media stories and 3440 publicly available social media posts were identified. The social media analysis centred around 274 original tweets with the highest reach, engagement and relevance. Incorporating multiple workstreams provided a broad perspective of end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom., Results: Three themes were developed: (1) restrictions to traditional care, (2) striving for new forms of care and (3) establishing identity and resilience., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic prohibited the delivery of traditional care as practical barriers restricted human connections. Staff prioritised communication and comfort orientated tasks to re-establish compassion at end-of-life and displayed resilience by adjusting their goals.

This review critically assesses the body of research about Measles-Mumps-and-Rubella (MMR) vaccine attitudes and uptake in the United Kingdom (UK) over the past 10 years. We searched PubMed and Scopus, with terms aimed at capturing relevant literature on attitudes about, and uptake of, the MMR vaccine. Two researchers screened for abstract eligibility and after de-duplication 934 studies were selected. After screening, 40 references were included for full-text review and thematic synthesis by three researchers. We were interested in the methodologies employed and grouped findings by whether studies concerned: (1) Uptake and Demographics; (2) Beliefs and Attitudes; (3) Healthcare Worker Focus; (4) Experimental and Psychometric Intervention; and (5) Mixed Methods. We identified group and individual level determinants for attitudes, operating directly and indirectly, which influence vaccine uptake. We found that access issues, often ignored within the public "anti-vax" debate, remain highly pertinent. Finally, a consistent theme was the effect of misinformation or lack of knowledge and trust in healthcare, often stemming from the Wakefield controversy. Future immunisation campaigns for children, including for COVID-19, should consider both access and attitudinal aspects of vaccination, and incorporate a range of methodologies to assess progress, taking into account socio-economic variables and the needs of disadvantaged groups.

Background: Community engagement (CE) is a well-established practical and scholarly field, recognised as core to the science and ethics of health research, for which researchers and practitioners have increasingly asked questions about desired standards and evaluation. In infectious disease outbreak contexts, questions may be more complex. However, it is unclear what body of knowledge has been developed for CE specifically as it applies to emerging infectious diseases. This scoping review seeks to describe (1) How CE has been conceptualised and understood; and (2) What conclusions have research teams reached on the effectiveness of CE in these settings, including challenges and facilitators., Methods: We used a scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19-32, 2005) to structure our review. We conducted a brainstorming session and initial trial search to inform the protocol, search terms, and strategy. Three researchers discussed, developed and applied agreed screening tools and selection criteria to the final search results. Five researchers used the screening tools to screen abstracts and full text for inclusion by consensus. Additional publications were sought from references of retrieved publications and an expert call for literature. We analysed and reported emerging themes qualitatively., Results: We included 59 papers from a total of 722 articles derived from our trial and final literature searches, as well as a process of "citation chasing" and an expert call for grey literature. The core material related exclusively to health research trials during the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak. We synthesized reports on components of effectiveness of CE to identify and propose three themes as essential elements of effective CE., Conclusions: While there is a large volume of literature documenting CE activities in infectious disease research settings generally, there are few accounts of effectiveness dimensions of CE. Our review proposes three themes to facilitate the effectiveness of CE initiatives as essential elements of CE activities in infectious diseases studies: (1) Communication towards building collaborative relationships; (2) Producing contextual knowledge; and (3) Learning lessons over time. As there were relatively few in-depth accounts of CE from our literature review, documentation and accounts of CE used in health research should be prioritised.

Travel restrictions have become a common disease control measure during the 2019 Coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19). Measures have ranged from quarantines when entering a country to outright travel bans. Yet more widespread travel restrictions in the form of country vaccine entry requirements have been in place for a long time for another disease - yellow fever. We track the historical underpinnings and policy developments that have led to stringent vaccine entry requirements today. We also discuss the political issues raised by health measures imposed on borders and discuss the reasons behind some clear regional differences. Almost no European countries currently have vaccine entry requirements, while at the other end of the spectrum, the majority of countries in the African region do, making vaccine entry requirements a global south phenomenon. We argue that vaccine entry requirements should be reassessed in the future as an underused public health tool, likely to become increasingly common. Vaccine entry requirements have proved effective in controlling the international spread of yellow fever but more can be done to ensure better use of this measure. Caution is needed due to the close links between public health and politics, evident since the first travel restriction in quarantines.

Objectives: To report frontline healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs' fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: A rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145 000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25)., Participants: Interview participants were HCWs purposively sampled from critical care, emergency and respiratory departments as well as redeployed HCWs from primary, secondary and tertiary care centres across the UK., Results: A major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to reuse and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about differential access to adequate PPE, particularly for women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use., Conclusion: This study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In December 2019, a working group of the European Academy of Microbiology assembled to discuss various aspects of vaccines and vaccinations. The meeting was organised by Jörg Hacker and Eliora Z. Ron and took place in the offices of the Leopoldina (German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina). Several important issues were addressed and a major part of the discussion focused on the need to develop new vaccines, especially to protect against pathogens that constitute a pandemic threat. Following the rapid and unpredicted spread of COVID-19 in the first seven months of 2020, the need to develop vaccines for pandemic viruses rapidly has been clearly established. Thus, this paper will concentrate on points that were highlighted by the recent COVID-19 pandemic and lessons learnt therefrom., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of FEMS.)

Social scientists have a robust history of contributing to better understandings of and responses to disease outbreaks. The implementation of qualitative research in the context of infectious epidemics, however, continues to lag behind in the delivery, credibility, and timeliness of findings when compared with other research designs. The purpose of this article is to reflect on our experience of carrying out three research studies (a rapid appraisal, a qualitative study based on interviews, and a mixed-methods survey) aimed at exploring health care delivery in the context of COVID-19. We highlight the importance of qualitative data to inform evidence-based public health responses and provide a way forward to global research teams who wish to implement similar rapid qualitative studies. We reflect on the challenges of setting up research teams, obtaining ethical approval, collecting and analyzing data in real-time and sharing actionable findings.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has set unprecedented demand on the healthcare workforce around the world. The UK has been one of the most affected countries in Europe. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) in relation to COVID-19 and care delivery models implemented to deal with the pandemic in the UK., Methods: The study was designed as a rapid appraisal combining: (1) a review of UK healthcare policies (n=35 policies), (2) mass media and social media analysis of front-line staff experiences and perceptions (n=101 newspaper articles, n=1 46 000 posts) and (3) in-depth (telephone) interviews with front-line staff (n=30 interviews). The findings from all streams were analysed using framework analysis., Results: Limited personal protective equipment (PPE) and lack of routine testing created anxiety and distress and had a tangible impact on the workforce. When PPE was available, incorrect size and overheating complicated routine work. Lack of training for redeployed staff and the failure to consider the skills of redeployed staff for new areas were identified as problems. Positive aspects of daily work reported by HCWs included solidarity between colleagues, the establishment of well-being support structures and feeling valued by society., Conclusion: Our study highlighted the importance of taking into consideration the experiences and concerns of front-line staff during a pandemic. Staff working in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic advocated clear and consistent guidelines, streamlined testing of HCWs, administration of PPE and acknowledgement of the effects of PPE on routine practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The 2018-2019 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in North Kivu and Ituri provinces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is the largest ever recorded in the DRC. It has been declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. The outbreak emerged in a region of chronic conflict and insecurity, and directed attacks against health care workers may have interfered with disease response activities. Our study characterizes and quantifies the broader conflict dynamics over the course of the outbreak by pairing epidemiological and all available spatial conflict data., Methods: We build a set of conflict variables by mapping the spatial locations of all conflict events and their associated deaths in each of the affected health zones in North Kivu and Ituri, eastern DRC, before and during the outbreak. Using these data, we compare patterns of conflict before and during the outbreak in affected health zones and those not affected. We then test whether conflict is correlated with increased EVD transmission at the health zone level., Findings: The incidence of conflict events per capita is ~ 600 times more likely in Ituri and North Kivu than for the rest of the DRC. We identified 15 time periods of substantial uninterrupted transmission across 11 health zones and a total of 120 bi-weeks. We do not find significant short-term associations between the bi-week reproduction numbers and the number of conflicts. However, we do find that the incidence of conflict per capita was correlated with the incidence of EVD per capita at the health zone level for the entire outbreak (Pearson's r = 0.33, 95% CI 0.05-0.57). In the two provinces, the monthly number of conflict events also increased by a factor of 2.7 in Ebola-affected health zones (p value < 0.05) compared to 2.0 where no transmission was reported and 1.3 in the rest of the DRC, in the period between February 2019 and July 2019., Conclusion: We characterized the association between variables documenting broad conflict levels and EVD transmission. Such assessment is important to understand if and how such conflict variables could be used to inform the outbreak response. We found that while these variables can help characterize long-term challenges and susceptibilities of the different regions they provide little insight on the short-term dynamics of EVD transmission.

Many parents are hesitant about, or face motivational barriers to, vaccinating their children. In this paper, we propose a type of vaccination policy that could be implemented either in addition to coercive vaccination or as an alternative to it in order to increase paediatric vaccination uptake in a non-coercive way. We propose the use of vaccination nudges that exploit the very same decision biases that often undermine vaccination uptake. In particular, we propose a policy under which children would be vaccinated at school or day-care by default, without requiring parental authorization, but with parents retaining the right to opt their children out of vaccination. We show that such a policy is (1) likely to be effective, at least in cases in which non-vaccination is due to practical obstacles, rather than to strong beliefs about vaccines, (2) ethically acceptable and less controversial than some alternatives because it is not coercive and affects individual autonomy only in a morally unproblematic way, and (3) likely to receive support from the UK public, on the basis of original empirical research we have conducted on the lay public.