Co-designing a theory-informed, multicomponent intervention to increase vaccine uptake with Congolese migrants: A qualitative, community-based participatory research study (LISOLO MALAMU).

INTRODUCTION: Disparities in the uptake of routine and COVID-19 vaccinations have been observed in migrant populations, and attributed to issues of mistrust, access and low vaccine confidence. Participatory research approaches and behaviour change theory hold the potential for developing tailored vaccination interventions that address these complex barriers in partnership with communities and should be explored further. METHODS: This study used a theory-informed, community-based participatory research approach to co-design a culturally tailored behaviour change intervention aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among Congolese migrants in London, United Kingdom (2021-2022). It was designed and led by a community-academic partnership in response to unmet needs in the Congolese community as the COVID-19 pandemic started. Barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination, information and communication preferences, and intervention suggestions were explored through qualitative in-depth interviews with Congolese migrants, thematically analysed, and mapped to the theoretical domains framework (TDF) and the capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour model to identify target behaviours and strategies to include in interventions. Interventions were co-designed and tailored in workshops involving Congolese migrants. RESULTS: Thirty-two Congolese adult migrants (24 (75%) women, mean 14.3 (SD: 7.5) years in the United Kingdom, mean age 52.6 (SD: 11.0) years) took part in in-depth interviews and 16 (same sample) took part in co-design workshops. Fourteen barriers and 10 facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination were identified; most barrier data related to four TDF domains (beliefs about consequences; emotion; social influences and environmental context and resources), and the behavioural diagnosis concluded interventions should target improving psychological capability, reflective and automatic motivations and social opportunities. Strategies included culturally tailored behaviour change techniques based on education, persuasion, modelling, enablement and environmental restructuring, which resulted in a co-designed intervention comprising community-led workshops, plays and posters. Findings and interventions were disseminated through a community celebration event. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates how behavioural theory can be applied to co-designing tailored interventions with underserved migrant communities through a participatory research paradigm to address a range of health issues and inequalities. Future research should build on this empowering approach, with the goal of developing more sensitive vaccination services and interventions which respond to migrant communities' unique cultural needs and realities. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) were embedded in the participatory study design and approach, with community members co-producing all stages of the study and co-authoring this paper. An independent PPI board (St George's Migrant Health Research Group Patient and Public Involvement Advisory Board) comprising five adult migrants with lived experience of accessing healthcare in the United Kingdom were also consulted at significant points over the course of the study.

A qualitative exploration of using financial incentives to improve vaccination uptake via consent form return in female adolescents in London.

OBJECTIVES: Incentivising vaccine consent form return may improve vaccine uptake and be seen as less coercive than incentivising vaccination itself. We assessed the acceptability of financial incentives in this context among adolescent females and explored potential mechanisms by which incentives might change behaviour. DESIGN: Focus groups and analysis of free-text questionnaire responses. METHODS: Study 1: 36 female secondary students in London (age 13-14) participated in six focus groups exploring the use of incentives in the context of vaccination. Data were analysed thematically. Study 2: was conducted to triangulate the findings of Study 1, by analysing free-text questionnaire responses from 181 female secondary students in London (age 12-13) reporting their opinion of incentivising consent form return. Data from Study 1 was also used to explore perceived potential mechanisms of action by which incentives might encourage consent form return. RESULTS: Focus group participants had positive attitudes towards incentives, with 61% of free-text responses also expressing this. Most focus group participants thought that incentives would encourage consent form return (18% of free-text respondents spontaneously also mentioned this). While incentivising consent form return was seen as ethical, focus group participants who incorrectly thought that vaccine receipt was being incentivised raised concerns about bribery, although only 4% of free text respondents reported these concerns. Frequently raised mechanisms of action included incentives increasing engagement with, and the perceived value of consent form return. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents had positive views of financially incentivising consent form return to promote vaccine uptake, although care must be taken to reduce misconceptions regarding what is being incentivised. Incentivising vaccination was seen as coercive, but incentivising actions that increase the likelihood of vaccination (i.e. consent form return) were not. Incentives may encourage adolescents to return consent forms by helping them engage with this behaviour or increasing its' perceived value.

Enhanced Invitations Using the Question-Behavior Effect and Financial Incentives to Promote Health Check Uptake in Primary Care.

Background: Uptake of health checks for cardiovascular risk assessment in primary care in England is lower than anticipated. The question-behavior effect (QBE) may offer a simple, scalable intervention to increase health check uptake. Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced invitation methods employing the QBE, with or without a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, at increasing uptake of health checks. Methods: We conducted a three-arm randomized trial including all patients at 18 general practices in two London boroughs, who were invited for health checks from July 2013 to December 2014. Participants were randomized to three trial arms: (i) Standard health check invitation letter only; (ii) QBE questionnaire followed by standard invitation letter; or (iii) QBE questionnaire with offer of a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, followed by standard invitation letter. In intention to treat analysis, the primary outcome of completion of health check within 6 months of invitation, was evaluated using a p value of .0167 for significance. Results: 12,459 participants were randomized. Health check uptake was evaluated for 12,052 (97%) with outcome data collected. Health check uptake within 6 months of invitation was: standard invitation, 590 / 4,095 (14.41%); QBE questionnaire, 630 / 3,988 (15.80%); QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 629 / 3,969 (15.85%). Difference following QBE questionnaire, 1.43% (95% confidence interval -0.12 to 2.97%, p = .070); following QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 1.52% (-0.03 to 3.07%, p = .054). Conclusions: Uptake of health checks following a standard invitation was low and not significantly increased through enhanced invitation methods using the QBE.

Assessing the acceptability of incentivising HPV vaccination consent form return as a means of increasing uptake.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is high overall but there are disparities in uptake, particularly by ethnicity. Incentivising vaccination consent form return is a promising approach to increase vaccination uptake. As part of a randomised feasibility trial we qualitatively assessed the acceptability of increasing uptake of HPV vaccination by incentivising consent form return. METHODS: In the context of a two-arm, cluster randomised feasibility trial, qualitative free-text questionnaire responses were collected from adolescent girls (n = 181) and their parents (n = 61), assessing the acceptability of an incentive intervention to increase HPV vaccination consent form return. In the incentive intervention arm, girls who returned a signed consent form (regardless of whether consent was given or refused), had a 1-in-10 chance of winning a £50 shopping voucher. Telephone interviews were also conducted with members of staff from participating schools (n = 6), assessing the acceptability of the incentive. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Girls and parents provided a mix of positive, negative and ambivalent responses about the use of the incentive to encourage HPV vaccination consent form return. Both girls and parents held misconceptions about the nature of the incentive, wrongly believing that the incentive was dependent on vaccination receipt rather than consent form return. School staff members also expressed a mix of opinions on the acceptability of the incentive, including perceptions of effectiveness and ethics. CONCLUSIONS: The use of an incentive intervention to encourage the return of HPV vaccination consent forms was found to be moderately acceptable to those receiving and delivering the intervention, although a number of changes are required to improve this. In particular, improving communication about the nature of the incentive to reduce misconceptions is vital. These findings suggest that incentivising consent form return may be an acceptable means of improving HPV vaccination rates, should improvements be made. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry; ISRCTN72136061 , 26 September 2016, retrospectively registered.

Role of ethnicity in human papillomavirus vaccination uptake: a cross-sectional study of girls from ethnic minority groups attending London schools.

OBJECTIVES: Research suggests that girls from ethnic minority groups are less likely to receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination than white British girls; however, the specific ethnic minority groups that have lower uptake have not been identified. This study aimed to examine the relationship between school-level uptake and ethnicity as well as uptake and other ethnicity-related factors, to understand which specific groups are less likely to receive the vaccination. METHODS: Aggregated uptake rates from 195 schools were obtained for each of the three recommended vaccine doses from 2008 to 2010. Census data at the lower super output area (LSOA) level for the postcode of each school were also obtained, describing the ethnic breakdown of the resident population (ethnicity, language spoken, religion, proficiency in English and duration of residency in the UK). These were used as proxy measures of the ethnic make-up of the schools. The most prevalent non-majority group for each ethnicity and ethnicity-related factor was assigned to each school. Analyses explored differences in uptake by ethnicity and ethnicity-related factors. RESULTS: No significant differences in vaccination uptake were found by ethnicity or ethnicity-related factors, although descriptive differences were apparent. Schools in areas where black ethnicities were the most prevalent non-white British ethnicities had consistently low rates of uptake for all doses. Schools in areas where some Asian ethnicities were the most prevalent non-white British ethnicities had consistently high rates of uptake for all doses. There was evidence of variability in mean uptake rates for ethnicities within 'black' and 'Asian' ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Future research would benefit from focusing on specific ethnicities rather than broad ethnic categories. Replication of this study with a larger sample and using complete individual-level data, collected on a national level, would provide a clearer indication of where ethnic differences in HPV vaccination uptake exist.

Enhanced invitation methods and uptake of health checks in primary care: randomised controlled trial and cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: A national programme of health checks to identify risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is being rolled out but is encountering difficulties because of low uptake. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an enhanced invitation method using the question-behaviour effect (QBE), with or without the offer of a financial incentive to return the QBE questionnaire, at increasing the uptake of health checks. The research went on to evaluate the reasons for the low uptake of invitations and compare the case mix for invited and opportunistic health checks. DESIGN: Three-arm randomised trial and cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: All participants invited for a health check from 18 general practices. Individual participants were randomised. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Standard health check invitation only; (2) QBE questionnaire followed by a standard invitation; and (3) QBE questionnaire with offer of a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, followed by a standard invitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was completion of the health check within 6 months of invitation. A p-value of 0.0167 was used for significance. In the cohort study of all health checks completed during the study period, the case mix was compared for participants responding to invitations and those receiving 'opportunistic' health checks. Participants were not aware that several types of invitation were in use. The research team were blind to trial arm allocation at outcome data extraction. RESULTS: In total, 12,459 participants were included in the trial and health check uptake was evaluated for 12,052 participants for whom outcome data were collected. Health check uptake was as follows: standard invitation, 590 out of 4095 (14.41%); QBE questionnaire, 630 out of 3988 (15.80%); QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 629 out of 3969 (15.85%). The increase in uptake associated with the QBE questionnaire was 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12% to 2.97%; p = 0.070] and the increase in uptake associated with the QBE questionnaire and offer of financial incentive was 1.52% (95% CI -0.03% to 3.07%; p = 0.054). The difference in uptake associated with the offer of an incentive to return the QBE questionnaire was -0.01% (95% CI -1.59% to 1.58%; p = 0.995). During the study period, 58% of health check cardiovascular risk assessments did not follow a trial invitation. People who received an 'opportunistic' health check had greater odds of a ≥ 10% CVD risk than those who received an invited health check (adjusted odds ratio 1.70, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.99; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of a health check following an invitation letter is low and is not increased through an enhanced invitation method using the QBE. The offer of a £5 incentive did not increase the rate of return of the QBE questionnaire. A high proportion of all health checks are performed opportunistically and not in response to a standard invitation letter. Participants receiving opportunistic checks are at higher risk of CVD than those responding to standard invitations. Future research should aim to increase the accessibility of preventative medical interventions to increase uptake. Research should also explore the wider use of electronic health records in delivering efficient trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42856343. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 84. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Taking stock and looking ahead: Behavioural science lessons for implementing the nonavalent human papillomavirus vaccine.

The development and licensing of a nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality from HPV-related cancers beyond that of first generation HPV vaccines. However, this benefit can only be realised if the offer of vaccination is accepted. Uptake of first generation HPV vaccines is not complete and shows huge global variation. In addition to practical and financial challenges to optimising coverage, behavioural issues explain a large proportion of the variance in vaccine receipt. This commentary draws on the findings of over a decade of behavioural science research seeking to understand uptake of first generation HPV vaccines, in order to anticipate challenges to implement the nonavalent HPV vaccine. Challenges include distrust of combination vaccines, uncertainty about long-term efficacy, distrust of a new and (perceived to be) untested vaccine, cost and uncertainty regarding interchanging doses of first generation and nonavalent vaccines and the appropriateness of revaccination. We use behavioural science theory and existing evaluations of interventions to increase uptake of vaccines to identify evidence-based approaches that can be implemented by vaccine stakeholders to address parents' concerns and maximise uptake of the nonavalent HPV vaccine.

Do health checks improve risk factor detection in primary care? Matched cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of NHS Health Checks on cardiovascular risk factor detection and inequalities. METHODS: Matched cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, including participants who received a health check in England between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2013, together with matched control participants, with linked deprivation scores. RESULTS: There were 91 618 eligible participants who received a health check, of whom 75 123 (82%) were matched with 182 245 controls. After the health check, 90% of men and 92% of women had complete data for blood pressure, total cholesterol, smoking and body mass index; a net 51% increase (P < 0.001) over controls. After the check, gender and deprivation inequalities in recording of all risk factors were lower than for controls. Net increase in risk factor detection was greater for hypercholesterolaemia (men +33%; women +32%) than for obesity (men +8%; women +4%) and hypertension in men only (+5%) (all P < 0.001). Detection of smoking was 5% lower in health check participants than controls (P < 0.001). Over 4 years, statins were prescribed to 11% of health -check participants and 7.6% controls (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.53-1.63, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: NHS Health Checks are associated with increased detection of hypercholesterolaemia, and to a lesser extent obesity and hypertension, but smokers may be under-represented.

Estimating the yield of NHS Health Checks in England: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the yield of the NHS Health Checks programme. METHODS: A cohort study, conducted in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. Electronic health records were analysed for patients aged 40-74 receiving an NHS Health Check between 2010 and 2013. RESULTS: There were 65 324 men and 75 032 women receiving a health check. For every 1000 men assessed, there were 205 smokers (95% confidence interval 195-215), 355 (340-369) with hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg) and 633 (607-658) with elevated cholesterol (≥5 mmol/l). Among 1000 women, there were 161 (151-171) smokers, 247 (238-257) with hypertension and 668 (646-689) with elevated cholesterol. In the 12 months following the check, statins were prescribed to 18% of men and 21% of women with ≥20% cardiovascular risk and antihypertensive drugs to 11% of men and 16% of women with ≥20% cardiovascular risk. Slight reductions in risk factor values were observed in the minority of participants with follow-up values recorded in the 15 months following the check. CONCLUSIONS: A universal primary prevention programme identifies substantial risk factor burden in a population without known cardiovascular disease. Research is needed to monitor interventions, and intermediate- and long-term outcomes, in those identified at high risk.

Influences on individuals' decisions to take up the offer of a health check: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Health checks are promoted to evaluate individuals' risk of developing disease and to initiate health promotion and disease prevention interventions. The NHS Health Check is a cardiovascular risk assessment programme introduced in the UK aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Uptake of health checks is lower than anticipated. This study aimed to explore influences on people's decisions to take up the offer of a health check. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people registered at four general practices in South London. The interview schedule was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data were analysed qualitatively using the Framework method using NVivo for data management. RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants invited for a health check were included in the study. Seventeen received the health check while 10 either did not attend or failed to complete the check. Five themes emerging from the data included a lack of awareness of the health check programme, beliefs about susceptibility to CVD, beliefs about civic responsibility, issues concerning access to appointments, and beliefs about the consequences of having a check. CONCLUSIONS: Health check programmes need to raise public awareness to ensure that people are informed about the objectives and nature of the programme in order to reach an informed decision about taking up the invitation. Emphasizing the benefits of prevention and early detection might encourage attendance in those who are reluctant to burden the public health-care systems. Extending outreach initiatives and increasing 'out of hours' provision at local community sites could facilitate access.