Correction to: Social marketing interventions to promote physical activity among 60 years and older: a systematic review of the literature.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Social marketing interventions to promote physical activity among 60 years and older: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Falls are a significant source of morbidity in people aged 65 and over, affecting one in three people in this age group. The scientific evidence indicates that physical activity is the most effective method for preventing falls among seniors. Although public health professionals often use social marketing to design and plan successful interventions, its use to promote physical activity and prevent falls among older people remains low. This article aims to provide a new systematic literature review of social marketing interventions promoting physical activity and targeting people aged 60 and over. METHODS: Following CRD's guidance and PRISMA guidelines, we searched between January 2008 and July 2019 for relevant articles in five primary databases using predefined search and inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers analysed the selected articles to identify evidence of the seven social marketing benchmark criteria, defined by experts in the field as the common elements that contribute to social marketing success. RESULTS: The final review included nine studies. Of the studies selected, three specifically targeted over 60-year-olds, whereas the others segmented the population into several age-based subcategories, including over 60-year-olds. Eight studies highlighted positive results for the participants with an increase in participation or an increase in physical activity level. None of the nine studies selected for this systematic review implemented the entire social marketing approach. CONCLUSION: Few published interventions use the seven social marketing criteria. Further research is required to encourage uptake and inclusion in successful social marketing interventions to increase program effectiveness in this target population.

Drivers of vaccine hesitancy among vulnerable populations in India: a cross-sectional multi-state study.

Objectives: India's Covid-19 vaccination campaign engaged frontline workers (FLWs) to encourage vaccination among vulnerable segments of society. The FLWs report encountering a variety of barriers to vaccination and are often unsuccessful despite multiple visits to the same person. This cross-sectional study aims to pinpoint which of these barriers drive vaccine hesitancy among these segments, to help streamline vaccine communication, including FLW training, to better safeguard the population. Methods: Trained field enumerators contacted 893 individuals from five states across India and collected self-reported assessments of fifteen vaccination barriers (identified through discussions with FLWs), current vaccination status and future vaccination intentions, and covariates (demographics/comorbidities). Factor analysis of the fifteen barriers yielded two factors, one relating to fear of vaccine adverse effects and a second focused on peripheral concerns regarding the vaccine. The covariates significantly associated with current vaccination status were combined under a latent class regime to yield three cluster types (health access, financial strength, and demographics). The primary analysis examined the effect of the two barrier factors, the covariate clusters, and comorbidity, on current vaccination status and future vaccine intentions. Results: Fear of vaccine adverse effects was the primary driver of vaccine hesitancy; peripheral concerns frequently mentioned by the FLWs had no impact. Although cluster membership and the presence of comorbidities predicted vaccine uptake, neither of them materially altered the effect of fear of vaccine adverse effects with the following exception: fear of adverse effects was not associated with vaccination status among young Muslim men. Conclusion: Subject to limitations, these results indicate that interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy should focus primarily on fear associated with vaccines rather than spend resources trying to address peripheral concerns.