Evaluating the impact of using mobile vaccination units to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Cheshire and Merseyside, UK: a synthetic control analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of mobile vaccination units on COVID-19 vaccine uptake of the first dose, the percentage of vaccinated people among the total eligible population. We further investigate whether such an effect differed by deprivation, ethnicity and age. DESIGN: Synthetic control analysis. SETTING: The population registered with general practices (GPs) in nine local authority areas in Cheshire and Merseyside in Northwest England, UK. INTERVENTION: Mobile vaccination units that visited 37 sites on 54 occasions between 12 April 2021 and 28 June 2021. We defined intervention neighbourhoods as having their population weighted centroid located within 1 km of mobile vaccination sites (338 006 individuals). A weighted combination of neighbourhoods that had not received the intervention (1 495 582 individuals) was used to construct a synthetic control group. OUTCOME: The weekly number of first-dose vaccines received among people aged 18 years and over as a proportion of the population. RESULTS: The introduction of a mobile vaccination unit into a neighbourhood increased the number of first vaccinations conducted in the neighbourhood by 25% (95% CI 21% to 28%) within 3 weeks after the first visit to a neighbourhood, compared with the synthetic control group. Interaction analyses showed smaller or no effect among older age groups, Asian and black ethnic groups, and the most socioeconomically deprived populations. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile vaccination units are effective interventions for increasing vaccination uptake, at least in the short term. While mobile units can be geographically targeted to reduce inequalities, we found evidence that they may increase inequalities in vaccine uptake within targeted areas, as the intervention was less effective among groups that tended to have lower vaccination uptake. Mobile vaccination units should be used in combination with activities to maximise outreach with black and Asian communities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in care home staff: A survey of Liverpool care homes.

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine first doses in UK care homes has been higher among residents compared to staff. We aimed to identify causes of lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake amongst care home staff within Liverpool. An anonymised online survey was distributed to all care home managers, between the 21st and the 29th January 2021. 53 % of 87 care homes responded. The overall COVID-19 vaccination rate was 52.6 % (n = 1119). Reasons, identified by care home managers for staff being unvaccinated included: concerns about lack of vaccine research (37.0 %), staff being off-site during vaccination sessions (36.5 %), pregnancy and fertility concerns (5.6 %), and allergic reactions concerns (3.2 %). Care home managers wanted to tackle vaccine hesitancy through conversations with health professionals, and provision of evidence dispelling vaccine misinformation. Vaccine hesitancy and logistical issues were the main causes for reduced vaccine uptake among care home staff. The former could be addressed by targeted training, and public health communication campaigns to build confidence and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.

Wheeze trajectories: Determinants and outcomes in the CHILD Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Wheezing in early life is associated with asthma in adulthood; however, the determinants of wheezing trajectories and their associations with asthma and lung function in childhood remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: In the CHILD Cohort Study, we aimed to identify wheezing trajectories and examine the associations between these trajectories, risk factors, and clinical outcomes at age 5 years. METHODS: Wheeze data were collected at 8 time points from 3 months to 5 years of age. We used group-based trajectory models to derive wheeze trajectories among 3154 children. Associations with risk factors and clinical outcomes were analyzed by weighted regression models. RESULTS: We identified 4 trajectories: a never/infrequent trajectory, transient wheeze, intermediate-onset (preschool) wheeze, and persistent wheeze. Higher body mass index was a common risk factor for all wheeze trajectories compared with that in the never/infrequent group. The unique predictors for specific wheeze trajectories included male sex, lower respiratory tract infections, and day care attendance for transient wheeze; paternal history of asthma, atopic sensitization, and child genetic risk score of asthma for intermediate wheeze; and maternal asthma for persistent wheeze. Blood eosinophil counts were higher in children with the intermediate wheeze trajectory than in those children with the other trajectories at the ages of 1 and 5 years. All wheeze trajectories were associated with decreased lung function and increased risk of asthma at age 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 4 distinct trajectories in children from 3 months to 5 years of age, reflecting different phenotypes of early childhood wheeze. These trajectories were characterized by different biologic and physiologic traits and risk factors.

Implementing lateral flow devices in long-term care facilities: experiences from the Liverpool COVID-19 community testing pilot in care homes- a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Antigen-based lateral flow devices (LFDs) offer the potential of widespread rapid testing. The scientific literature has primarily focused on mathematical modelling of their use and test performance characteristics. For these tests to be implemented successfully, an understanding of the real-world contextual factors that allow them to be integrated into the workplace is vital. To address this gap in knowledge, we aimed to explore staff's experiences of integrating LFDs into routine practice for visitors and staff testing with a view to understand implementation facilitators and barriers. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified two main themes and five subthemes. The main themes included: visitor-related testing factors and staff-related testing factors. Subthemes included: restoring a sense of normality, visitor-related testing challenges, staff-related testing challenges, and pre-pilot antecedent factors. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that the real-world implementation of LFDs to test visitors and staff faces significant challenges as a result of several contextual factors negatively affecting the work practice and environment. More comprehensive studies are needed to identify and inform effective implementation strategies to ensure that LFDs can be adopted in an agile way that better supports an already exhausted and morally depleted workforce.

Enhanced lateral flow testing strategies in care homes are associated with poor adherence and were insufficient to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks: results from a mixed methods implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: Care homes have been severely affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Rapid antigen testing could identify most SARS-CoV-2 infected staff and visitors before they enter homes. We explored implementation of staff and visitor testing protocols using lateral flow devices (LFDs). METHODS: An evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 LFD-based testing protocol in 11 care homes in Liverpool, UK, including staff and visitor testing, plus a qualitative exploratory study in nine of these homes. The proportion of pilot homes with outbreaks, and outbreak size, were compared to non-pilot homes in Liverpool. Adherence to testing protocols was evaluated. Fifteen staff were interviewed, and transcript data were thematically coded using an iterative analysis to identify and categorize factors influencing testing implementation. RESULTS: In total, 1,638 LFD rapid tests were performed on 407 staff. Protocol adherence was poor with 8.6% of staff achieving >75% protocol adherence, and 25.3% achieving $\ge$50%. Six care homes had outbreaks during the study. Compared to non-pilot care homes, there was no evidence of significant difference in the proportion of homes with outbreaks, or the size of outbreaks. Qualitative data showed difficulty implementing testing strategies due to excessive work burden. Factors influencing adherence related to test integration and procedural factors, socio-economic factors, cognitive overload and the emotional value of testing. CONCLUSION: Implementation of staff and visitor care home LFD testing protocols was poorly adhered to and consequently did not reduce the number or scale of COVID-19 outbreaks. More focus is needed on the contextual and behavioural factors that influence protocol adherence.

COVID-19 point-of-care testing in care homes: what are the lessons for policy and practice?

COVID-19 has devastated care homes. Point-of-care tests (POCTs), mainly using lateral flow devices (LFDs), have been deployed hurriedly without much consideration of their usability or impact on care workflow. Even after the pandemic, POCTs, particularly multiplex tests, may be an important control against spread of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections in care homes by enabling identification of cases. They should not, however, replace other infection control measures such as barrier methods and quarantine. Adherence to LFDs as implemented among care home staff is suboptimal. Other tests-such as point-of-care polymerase chain reaction and automated antigen tests-would also need to be accommodated into care home workflows to improve adherence. The up-front costs of POCTs are straightforward but additional costs, including staffing preparation and reporting processes and the impacts of false positive and negative tests on absence rates and infection days, are more complex and as yet unquantified. A detailed appraisal is needed as the future of testing in care homes is considered.

Universal or targeted cardiovascular screening? Modelling study using a sector-specific distributional cost effectiveness analysis.

Distributional cost effectiveness analysis is a new method that can help to redesign prevention programmes by explicitly modelling the distribution of health opportunity costs as well as the distribution of health benefits. Previously we modelled cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening audit data from Liverpool, UK to see if the city could redesign its cardiovascular screening programme to enhance its cost effectiveness and equity. Building on this previous analysis, we explicitly examined the distribution of health opportunity costs and we looked at new redesign options co-designed with stakeholders. We simulated four plausible scenarios: a) no CVD screening, b) 'current' basic universal CVD screening as currently implemented, c) enhanced universal CVD screening with 'increased' population-wide delivery, and d) 'universal plus targeted' with top-up delivery to the most deprived fifth. We also compared assumptions around whether displaced health spend would come from programmes that might benefit the poor more and how much health these programmes would generate. The main outcomes were net health benefit and change in the slope index of inequality (SII) in QALYs per 100,000 person years. 'Universal plus targeted' dominated 'increased' and 'current' and also reduced health inequality by -0.65 QALYs per 100,000 person years. Results are highly sensitive to assumptions about opportunity costs and, in particular, whether funding comes from health care or local government budgets. By analysing who loses as well as who gains from expenditure decisions, distributional cost effectiveness analysis can help decision makers to redesign prevention programmes in ways that improve health and reduce health inequality.

Future cost-effectiveness and equity of the NHS Health Check cardiovascular disease prevention programme: Microsimulation modelling using data from Liverpool, UK.

BACKGROUND: Aiming to contribute to prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme has been implemented across England since 2009. The programme involves cardiovascular risk stratification-at 5-year intervals-of all adults between the ages of 40 and 74 years, excluding any with preexisting vascular conditions (including CVD, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, among others), and offers treatment to those at high risk. However, the cost-effectiveness and equity of population CVD screening is contested. This study aimed to determine whether the NHS Health Check programme is cost-effective and equitable in a city with high levels of deprivation and CVD. METHODS AND FINDINGS: IMPACTNCD is a dynamic stochastic microsimulation policy model, calibrated to Liverpool demographics, risk factor exposure, and CVD epidemiology. Using local and national data, as well as drawing on health and social care disease costs and health-state utilities, we modelled 5 scenarios from 2017 to 2040: Scenario (A): continuing current implementation of NHS Health Check;Scenario (B): implementation 'targeted' toward areas in the most deprived quintile with increased coverage and uptake;Scenario (C): 'optimal' implementation assuming optimal coverage, uptake, treatment, and lifestyle change;Scenario (D): scenario A combined with structural population-wide interventions targeting unhealthy diet and smoking;Scenario (E): scenario B combined with the structural interventions as above. We compared all scenarios with a counterfactual of no-NHS Health Check. Compared with no-NHS Health Check, the model estimated cumulative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (discounted £/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) to be 11,000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] -270,000 to 320,000) for scenario A, 1,500 (-91,000 to 100,000) for scenario B, -2,400 (-6,500 to 5,700) for scenario C, -5,100 (-7,400 to -3,200) for scenario D, and -5,000 (-7,400 to -3,100) for scenario E. Overall, scenario A is unlikely to become cost-effective or equitable, and scenario B is likely to become cost-effective by 2040 and equitable by 2039. Scenario C is likely to become cost-effective by 2030 and cost-saving by 2040. Scenarios D and E are likely to be cost-saving by 2021 and 2023, respectively, and equitable by 2025. The main limitation of the analysis is that we explicitly modelled CVD and diabetes mellitus only. CONCLUSIONS: According to our analysis of the situation in Liverpool, current NHS Health Check implementation appears neither equitable nor cost-effective. Optimal implementation is likely to be cost-saving but not equitable, while targeted implementation is likely to be both. Adding structural policies targeting cardiovascular risk factors could substantially improve equity and generate cost savings.