Identifying barriers to outpatient appointment attendance in patient groups at risk of inequity: a mixed methods study in a London NHS trust.

BACKGROUND: There is significant health inequity in the United Kingdom (U.K.), with different populations facing challenges accessing health services, which can impact health outcomes. At one London National Health Service (NHS) Trust, data showed that patients from deprived areas and minority ethnic groups had a higher likelihood of missing their first outpatient appointment. This study's objectives were to understand barriers to specific patient populations attending first outpatient appointments, explore systemic factors and assess appointment awareness. METHODS: Five high-volume specialties identified as having inequitable access based on ethnicity and deprivation were selected as the study setting. Mixed methods were employed to understand barriers to outpatient attendance, including qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients and staff, observations of staff workflows and interrogation of quantitative data on appointment communication. To identify barriers, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who missed their appointment and were from a minority ethnic group or deprived area. Staff interviews and observations were carried out to further understand attendance barriers. Patient interview data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis to create a thematic framework and triangulated with staff data. Subthemes were mapped onto a behavioural science framework highlighting behaviours that could be targeted. Quantitative data from patient interviews were analysed to assess appointment awareness and communication. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients and 11 staff were interviewed, with four staff observed. Seven themes were identified as barriers - communication factors, communication methods, healthcare system, system errors, transport, appointment, and personal factors. Knowledge about appointments was an important identified behaviour, supported by eight out of 26 patients answering that they were unaware of their missed appointment. Environmental context and resources were other strongly represented behavioural factors, highlighting systemic barriers that prevent attendance. CONCLUSION: This study showed the barriers preventing patients from minority ethnic groups or living in deprived areas from attending their outpatient appointment. These barriers included communication factors, communication methods, healthcare the system, system errors, transport, appointment, and personal factors. Healthcare services should acknowledge this and work with public members from these communities to co-design solutions supporting attendance. Our work provides a basis for future intervention design, informed by behavioural science and community involvement.

Testing the impact of differing behavioural science informed text message content in COVID-19 vaccination invitations on vaccine uptake: A randomised clinical trial.

Behavioural science constructs can be incorporated into messaging strategies to enhance the effectiveness of public health campaigns by increasing the occurrence of desired behaviours. This study investigated the impact of behavioural science-informed text message strategies on COVID-19 vaccination rates in 18-39-year-olds in an area of low uptake in London during the first vaccination offer round in the United Kingdom. This three-armed randomised trial recruited unvaccinated residents of an urban Central London suburb being offered their first vaccination between May and June 2021. Participants were randomised to receive the control (current practice) text message or one of two different behavioural science-informed COVID-19 vaccine invitation strategies. Both intervention strategies contained the phrase "your vaccine is ready and waiting for you", aiming to evoke a sense of ownership, with one strategy also including a pre-alert message. The main outcome measures were vaccination rates at 3 and 8 weeks after message delivery. A total of 88,820 residents were randomly assigned to one of the three trial arms. Each arm had a vaccine uptake rate of 27.2 %, 27.4 % and 27.3 % respectively. The mean age of participants was 28.2 years (SD ± 5.7), the mean index of multiple deprivation was 4.3 (SD ± 2.0) and 50.4 % were women. Vaccine uptake varied by demographics, however there was no significant difference between trial arms (p = 0.872). Delivery was successful for 53.6 % of text messages. Our choice of behavioural science informed messaging strategies did not improve vaccination rates above the rate seen for the current practice message. This likely reflects the wide exposure to public health campaigns during the pandemic, as such text messages nudges were unlikely to alter existing informed decision-making processes. Text message delivery was relatively low, indicating a need for accurate mobile phone number records and multi-modal approaches to reach eligible patients for vaccination. The protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04895683) on 20/05/2021.

Implementing behavioural science informed letter interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake in uncontactable London residents: a difference-in-difference study in London, UK.

BACKGROUND: The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme began in December, 2020. By February, 2021, eight North West London Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) had the lowest vaccination rates nationally. This study evaluated the impact of behavioural science-informed (BI) letters on vaccination uptake. METHODS: Unvaccinated residents of the Central London CCG who were deemed uncontactable (through text messaging and phone calls) were identified with the whole systems integrated care database. BI letters were sent to residents in the intervention CCG between May and June, 2021. Three neighbouring CCGs in London with similar non-responder data were used as control groups. A linear difference-in-difference analysis was undertaken to assess change in vaccine uptake rate across all four CCGs. Percentage point change was adjusted for selected covariates including ethnicity, age, gender, and index of multiple deprivation (IMD) quintiles. Approval was obtained from the quality improvement and audit office of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (London, UK). FINDINGS: Within the intervention Central London CCG, 10 161 residents received the BI letter. The control CCGs contained 27 383 uncontactable residents. All CCGs showed an increase in vaccination rates in this population. The linear difference-in-difference analysis showed an increase in vaccination uptake in the intervention CCG (relative change 31·9% (95% CI 30·5-33·3; p<0·0001). Residents in IMD quintile 5 (least deprived) showed the largest rate of change (4·1%; p<0·0001). Residents with a mixed or multiple ethnic background were less likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (-4·1%, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: BI letters improved the rate of vaccine uptake. The percentage point increase of 31·9% equates to 436 additional previously uncontactable residents being vaccinated. Our data highlighted differences in the effect of BI-informed interventions in population subgroups. BI letters are a cost-effective and trusted communication tool, effectively engaging residents where other communication strategies did not work. FUNDING: None.

Improving equity in inpatient paediatric services: a single-centre quality improvement project providing care in patients' preferred language.

Language barriers, if not adequately addressed, can prevent effective communication, impact patient safety and experience. Our research on language preference within the paediatric inpatient and outpatient services in west London revealed that 20% and 56%, respectively, would prefer to communicate in an alternative language than English. When we conducted emotional mapping analysis patients reported feeling 'invisible' and 'not involved' due to the lack of communication in their preferred language. Here, we describe our analysis and pilot intervention of using translated asthma care plans that aims to improve patient care, experience and outcomes by minimising the impact of language barriers.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody lateral flow assay for antibody prevalence studies following vaccination: a diagnostic accuracy study.

Background: Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) are able to achieve affordable, large scale antibody testing and provide rapid results without the support of central laboratories. As part of the development of the REACT programme extensive evaluation of LFIA performance was undertaken with individuals following natural infection. Here we assess the performance of the selected LFIA to detect antibody responses in individuals who have received at least one dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. Methods: This was a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Sampling was carried out at renal outpatient clinic and healthcare worker testing sites at Imperial College London NHS Trust. Two cohorts of patients were recruited; the first was a cohort of 108 renal transplant patients attending clinic following two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the second cohort comprised 40 healthcare workers attending for first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and subsequent follow up. During the participants visit, finger-prick blood samples were analysed on LFIA device, while paired venous sampling was sent for serological assessment of antibodies to the spike protein (anti-S) antibodies. Anti-S IgG was detected using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Quant II CMIA. A total of 186 paired samples were collected. The accuracy of Fortress LFIA in detecting IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared to anti-spike protein detection on Abbott Assay Results: The LFIA had an estimated sensitivity of 92.0% (114/124; 95% confidence interval [CI] 85.7% to 96.1%) and specificity of 93.6% (58/62; 95% CI 84.3% to 98.2%) using the Abbott assay as reference standard (using the threshold for positivity of 7.10 BAU/ml) Conclusions: Fortress LFIA performs well in the detection of antibody responses for intended purpose of population level surveillance but does not meet criteria for individual testing.