Tackling barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in London: a mixed-methods evaluation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first vaccine was administered in December 2020 in England. However, vaccination uptake has historically been lower in London than in other English regions.Methods
Mixed-methods: This comprised an analysis of cumulative percentage uptake across London between 8 December 2020 and 6 June 2021 by vaccine priority cohorts and ethnicity. We also undertook thematic analyses of uptake barriers, interventions to tackle these and key learning from a qualitative survey of 27 London local authority representatives, vaccine plans from London's five Integrated Care Systems and interviews with 38 London system representatives.Results
Vaccine uptake was lower in Black ethnic (57-65% uptake) compared with the White British group (90% uptake). Trust was a critical issue, including mistrust in the vaccine itself and in authorities administering or promoting it. The balance between putative costs and benefits of vaccination created uptake barriers for zero-hour and shift workers. Intensive, targeted and 'hyper-local' initiatives, which sustained community relationships and were not constrained by administrative boundaries, helped tackle these barriers.Conclusions
The success of the national vaccination programme depended on conceding local autonomy, investing in responsive and long-term partnerships to engender trust through in-depth understanding of communities' beliefs.
SUBMITTER: Halvorsrud K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8992332 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Tackling barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in London: a mixed-methods evaluation.
Halvorsrud Kristoffer K Shand Jenny J Weil Leonora G LG Hutchings Andrew A Zuriaga Ana A Satterthwaite Dane D Yip Jennifer L Y JLY Eshareturi Cyril C Billett Julie J Hepworth Ann A Dodhia Rakesh R Schwartz Ellen C EC Penniston Rachel R Mordaunt Emma E Bulmer Sophie S Barratt Helen H Illingworth John J Inskip Joanna J Bury Fran F Jenkins Deborah D Mounier-Jack Sandra S Raine Rosalind R
Journal of public health (Oxford, England) 20230601 2
<h4>Background</h4>In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first vaccine was administered in December 2020 in England. However, vaccination uptake has historically been lower in London than in other English regions.<h4>Methods</h4>Mixed-methods: This comprised an analysis of cumulative percentage uptake across London between 8 December 2020 and 6 June 2021 by vaccine priority cohorts and ethnicity. We also undertook thematic analyses of uptake barriers, interventions to tackle these and key le ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:We conducted a study in Georgia to examine behavioral insights and barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people living with HIV (PLWH). Between December 2021-July 2022, we collected quantitative data to evaluate participants' demographics, COVID-19 knowledge, attitude, perception, and HIV stigma as potential covariates for being vaccinated against COVID-19. We conducted a multivariate analysis to define the factors independently associated with COVID-19 vaccination among PLWH. We collected qualitative data to explore individual experiences of their positive or negative choices, main barriers, HIV stigma, and preferences for receiving vaccination. Of the total 85 participants of the study, 52.9% were vaccinated; 61.2% had concerns with the disclosure of HIV status at the vaccination site. Those who believed they would have a severe form of COVID-19 were more likely to be vaccinated (OR = 23.8; 95% CI: 5.1-111.7). The association stayed significant after adjusting for sex, age, education level, living area, health care providers' unfriendly attitudes, and their fear of disclosing HIV status at vaccination places. Based on the qualitative study, status disclosure was a significant barrier to receiving care; therefore, PLWH prefer to receive COVID-19 vaccination integrated in HIV services. Conclusions: In this study, around half of the participants were not vaccinated against COVID-19. The main reasons for not being vaccinated included stigma, misleading health beliefs, and low awareness about COVID-19. An integrated service delivery model may improve vaccination uptake among PLWH in Georgia.
| S-EPMC10977874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With COVID-19 no longer categorized as a public health emergency of international concern, vaccination strategies and priority groups for vaccination have evolved. Africa Centres for Diseases Prevention and Control proposed the '100-100-70%' strategy which aims to vaccinate all healthcare workers, all vulnerable groups, and 70% of the general population. Understanding whether healthcare workers were reached during previous vaccination campaigns and what can be done to address concerns, anxieties, and other influences on vaccine uptake, will be important to optimally plan how to achieve these ambitious targets. In this mixed-methods study, between June 2021 and July 2022 a quantitative survey was conducted with healthcare workers accessing a comprehensive health check in Zimbabwe to determine whether and, if so, when they had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Healthcare workers were categorized as those who had received the vaccine 'early' (before 30.06.2021) and those who had received it 'late' (after 30.06.2021). In addition, 17 in-depth interviews were conducted to understand perceptions and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines. Of the 3,086 healthcare workers employed at 43 facilities who participated in the study, 2,986 (97%, 95% CI [92%-100%]) reported that they had received at least one vaccine dose. Geographical location, older age, higher educational attainment and having a chronic condition was associated with receiving the vaccine early. Qualitatively, (mis)information, infection risk perception, quasi-mandatory vaccination requirements, and legitimate concerns such as safety and efficacy influenced vaccine uptake. Meeting the proposed 100-100-70 target entails continued emphasis on strong communication while engaging meaningfully with healthcare workers' concerns. Mandatory vaccination may undermine trust and should not be a substitute for sustained engagement.
| S-EPMC10734954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccination is the most cost-effective way of preventing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) although there was a considerable delay in its institution in Tanzania. This study assessed health care workers' (HCWs) self-perceived infection risk and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. A concurrent embedded, mixed methods design was utilized to collect data among HCWs in seven Tanzanian regions. Quantitative data was collected using a validated, pre-piloted, interviewer administered questionnaire whereas in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) gathered qualitative data. Descriptive analyses were performed while chi-square test and logistic regression were used to test for associations across categories. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. A total of 1,368 HCWs responded to the quantitative tool, 26 participated in the IDIs and 74 in FGDs. About half of the HCW (53.6%) reported to have been vaccinated and three quarters (75.5%) self-perceived to be at a high risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection. High perceived infection risk was associated with increased COVID-19 vaccine uptake (OR 1.535). Participants perceived that the nature of their work and the working environment in the health facilities increased their infection risk. Limited availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was reported to elevate the perceived infection risks. Participants in the oldest age group and from low and mid-level health care facilities had higher proportions with a high-risk perception of acquiring COVID-19 infection. Only about half of the HCWs reported to be vaccinated albeit the majority recounted higher perception of risk to contracting COVID-19 due to their working environment, including limited availability and use of PPE. Efforts to address heightened perceived-risks should include improving the working environment, availability of PPE and continue updating HCWs on the benefits of COVID-19 vaccine to limit their infection risks and consequent transmission to their patients and public.
| S-EPMC10246783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) among asymptomatic university students.Study designThis study was a mixed methods evaluation of LFT among University of Bristol students.MethodsWe conducted (1) an analysis of testing uptake and exploration of demographic variations in uptake using logistic regression; (2) an online student survey about views on university testing; and (3) qualitative interviews to explore participants' experiences of testing and subsequent behaviour, analysed using a thematic approach.ResultsA total of 12,391 LFTs were conducted on 8025 of 36,054 (22.3%) students. Only one in 10 students had the recommended two tests. There were striking demographic disparities in uptake with those from ethnic minority groups having lower uptake (e.g. 3% of Chinese students were tested vs 30.7% of White students) and variations by level and year of study (ranging from 5.3% to 33.7%), place of residence (29.0%-35.6%) and faculty (15.2%-32.8%). Differences persisted in multivariable analyses. A total of 436 students completed the online survey, and 20 in-depth interviews were conducted. Barriers to engagement with testing included a lack of awareness, knowledge and understanding, and concerns about the accuracy and safety. Students understood the limitations of LFTs but requested further information about test accuracy. Tests were used to inform behavioural decisions, often in combination with other information, such as the potential for exposure to the virus and perceptions of vulnerability.ConclusionsThe low uptake of testing brings into question the role of mass LFT in university settings. Innovative strategies may be needed to increase LFT uptake among students.
| S-EPMC8755476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Healthcare workers are a trusted health information source and are uniquely positioned to reduce the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this sequential exploratory mixed methods study was to understand attitudes of healthcare workers working in Massachusetts during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine utilization, including vaccine mandates and incentives. Fifty-two individuals completed one-on-one interviews between April 22nd and September 7th, 2021. The survey was developed based on findings from the interviews; 209 individuals completed the online survey between February 17th and March 23rd, 2022. Both the interview and survey asked about attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine and booster mandates, incentives, and strategies to improve vaccination rates. Most participants were female (79%-interview, 81%-survey), Caucasian (56%, 73%), and worked as physicians (37%, 34%) or nurses (10%, 18%). Overall, nuanced attitudes regarding vaccine and booster mandates were expressed; many supported mandates to protect their patients' health, others emphasized personal autonomy, while some were against mandates if job termination was the consequence of declining vaccines. Similarly, views regarding vaccine incentives differed; some considered incentives helpful, yet many viewed them as coercive. Strategies believed to be most effective to encourage vaccination included improving accessibility to vaccination sites, addressing misinformation, discussing vaccine safety, tailored community outreach via trusted messengers, and one-on-one conversations between patients and healthcare workers. Healthcare workers' experiences with strategies to improve utilization of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters have implications for public health policies. Generally, efforts to improve access and education were viewed more favorably than incentives and mandates.
| S-EPMC9746602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed examin the factors associated with the uptake and non-acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses among healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Africa. We used a mixed-methods design with data from a web-based self-administered survey followed by semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs) with selected participants. Of the 6235 HCWs included in our analysis who had fully vaccinated, 3470 (56%) had taken their booster dose with a further 17% intending to get the booster. HCWs aged 35 to 49 years (OR = 1.30 [95% CI: 1.15-1.46]), and those aged 50 years or older (OR = 2.66 [95% CI: 2.32-3.05]) were more likely to get the booster dose. Females were less likely to have received the booster dose (OR = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.79-0.98]) with doctors more likely (OR = 1.58 [95% CI: 1.35-1.84]) than Nurses to have received the booster dose. HCWs in direct contact with patients (OR = 1.17 [95% CI: 1.00-1.38]) and who had previously received a flu vaccine (OR = 1.99 [95% CI: 1.56-2.55]) were more likely to have received the booster dose. Four themes emerged from the qualitative data analysis: (1) Vaccination as routine practice among HCWs; (2) Emergence of new COVID-19 variants necessitating vaccine boosters; (3) Fear of potential side-effects; and (4) Limited value of COVID-19 vaccine boosters. Some HCWs broadly accepted the value of vaccination, and believed that boosters were necessary to effectively combat emergent new virus strains, which contrasted with peers who believed that boosters offered little defence against virus mutations. Fear prohibited some HCWs from getting the booster, with some having experienced adverse side effects from their initial vaccination, whilst others were concerned about future complications. Waning booster uptake rates could be arrested through invigorated communication strategies, while effective evidence-based training can potentially create positive normative vaccination practices amongst HCWs.
| S-EPMC10659170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite improved availability of COVID-19 vaccines in Sub-Saharan Africa, vaccination campaigns in the region have struggled to pick up pace and trail the rest of the world. Yet, a successful vaccination campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa will be critical to containing COVID-19 globally.MethodsHere, we present new descriptive evidence on vaccine hesitancy, uptake, last-mile delivery barriers, and potential strategies to reach those who remain unvaccinated. Our data comes from national high frequency phone surveys in six countries in East and West Africa with a total population of 415 million people. Samples were drawn from nationally representative samples of households interviewed in recent in-person surveys. Our estimates are based on a survey module harmonized across countries and are re-weighted to mitigate potential sample selection biases.ResultsWe show that vaccine acceptance remains generally high among respondents in Sub-Saharan Africa (between 95.1% and 63.3%) even though hesitancy is non-negligible among those pending vaccination. Many who are willing to get vaccinated are deterred by a lack of easy access to vaccines at the local level. Furthermore, social ties and perceptions as well as intra-household power relations matter for vaccine take-up. Among the unvaccinated population, radio broadcasts have widespread reach and medical professionals are highly trusted.ConclusionsOur findings highlight that creating a positive social norm around COVID-19 vaccination, messaging that leverages trusted and accessible information sources and channels, and more easily accessible vaccination sites at the community level are promising policy options to boost vaccination campaigns in the region and end the pandemic everywhere.
| S-EPMC10495410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlobally, COVID-19 vaccines have proven to be instrumental for promoting population health by reducing illness from SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine certificates emerged as a potentially promising solution for encouraging vaccination and facilitating the safe reopening of society, however, they were controversial due to criticisms of infringing upon individual rights. While there is extensive literature describing the ethical, legal, and public health implications of vaccine certificates, there is currently a gap in knowledge about the association of vaccine certificates on vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic and barriers and facilitators to their use.ObjectivesThe objectives of this scoping review are to (i) describe the existing literature on the association of vaccine certificates on the rates of COVID-19 vaccine uptake across several countries and (ii) describe the intrinsic and extrinsic barriers or facilitators that moderate this relationship.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review based on PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guidelines. We searched three bibliographic databases (APA PsychInfo, Embase Classic + Embase, OVID-Medline) and preprint severs during the first week of July 2023. Three reviewers independently screened the studies based on pre-specified eligibility criteria and performed quality assessments of the primary literature and data extraction.ResultsSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. 14 or these were surveys and 2 were modelling studies. The majority documented that vaccine certificates were significantly associated with increased rates of COVID-19 vaccine uptake (n = 12), motivated by factors such as travel/employer requirements, influence from the government/peers, and trust in the safety, efficacy, and science behind COVID-19 vaccines. Three studies had non-significant or mixed findings. Only one study found a significant decrease in COVID-19 vaccine uptake, motivated by pervasive distrust in the QR code-based system of digital vaccine certificates in Russia. Quality of survey studies was generally high.ConclusionOur findings provide insights into the existing literature on vaccine certificates association with vaccine uptake in several different jurisdictions and barriers and facilitators to their uptake. This information can be used to guide future examinations of the implementation of vaccine certificates and more effective implementations.
| S-EPMC10537206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA global surplus of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines exists as a result of difficulties in aligning the demand and supply for vaccine manufacturing and delivery. World leaders have accelerated vaccine development, approval, production and distribution as a pragmatic approach to addressing the immediate public health challenges of the first two and a half years of the pandemic.Main bodyThe currently predominant, highly transmissible Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has brought us closer to the threshold required to achieve herd immunity by greatly increasing rates of natural infection. Paradoxically, in parallel with rising vaccination levels in industrialized nations, this indirectly reduces the need for mass vaccine campaigns. Principal concerns that contribute to low vaccination rates which persist in several other countries, particularly of the Global South, are vaccine hesitancy and unequal access to vaccination. Social uncertainty fueled by fake news, misinformation, unfounded lay opinions and conspiracy theories has inevitably led to an erosion of public trust in vaccination.ConclusionTo address the current mismatch between supply and demand of COVID-19 vaccines, there should be a focus on three principles: decelerating vaccine production, increasing distribution across communities, and optimizing cost-effectiveness of distribution logistics. Slowing down and switching from large-scale production to effectively 'made to order' is a feasible option, which should be commensurate with management capacity. Transparent and evidence-based data should be widely and freely disseminated to the public through multimedia channels to mitigate miscommunication and conspiracy theories. Use of soon-to-expire stockpiles should be prioritized not only to enhance booster dose rollouts in adults but to expand immunization campaigns to children (especially those aged 5-11 years), subject to national approval. Future research should ideally aim to develop vaccines that only require basic, affordable storage and maintenance procedures as opposed to sophisticated and expensive protocols.
| S-EPMC10025780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOn March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared SARS-CoV-2, causing COVID-19, as a pandemic. The UK mass vaccination program commenced on December 8, 2020, vaccinating groups of the population deemed to be most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 infection.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the early vaccine administration coverage and outcome data across an integrated care system in North West London, leveraging a unique population-level care data set. Vaccine effectiveness of a single dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines were compared.MethodsA retrospective cohort study identified 2,183,939 individuals eligible for COVID-19 vaccination between December 8, 2020, and February 24, 2021, within a primary, secondary, and community care integrated care data set. These data were used to assess vaccination hesitancy across ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic deprivation measures (Pearson product-moment correlations); investigate COVID-19 transmission related to vaccination hubs; and assess the early effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination (after a single dose) using time-to-event analyses with multivariable Cox regression analysis to investigate if vaccination independently predicted positive SARS-CoV-2 in those vaccinated compared to those unvaccinated.ResultsIn this study, 5.88% (24,332/413,919) of individuals declined and did not receive a vaccination. Black or Black British individuals had the highest rate of declining a vaccine at 16.14% (4337/26,870). There was a strong negative association between socioeconomic deprivation and rate of declining vaccination (r=-0.94; P=.002) with 13.5% (1980/14,571) of individuals declining vaccination in the most deprived areas compared to 0.98% (869/9609) in the least. In the first 6 days after vaccination, 344 of 389,587 (0.09%) individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The rate increased to 0.13% (525/389,243) between days 7 and 13, before then gradually falling week on week. At 28 days post vaccination, there was a 74% (hazard ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.19-0.35) and 78% (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.18-0.27) reduction in risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 for individuals that received the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, respectively, when compared with unvaccinated individuals. A very low proportion of hospital admissions were seen in vaccinated individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (288/389,587, 0.07% of all patients vaccinated) providing evidence for vaccination effectiveness after a single dose.ConclusionsThere was no definitive evidence to suggest COVID-19 was transmitted as a result of vaccination hubs during the vaccine administration rollout in North West London, and the risk of contracting COVID-19 or becoming hospitalized after vaccination has been demonstrated to be low in the vaccinated population. This study provides further evidence that a single dose of either the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine or the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is effective at reducing the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 up to 60 days across all age groups, ethnic groups, and risk categories in an urban UK population.
| S-EPMC8451961 | biostudies-literature