Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

BACKGROUND: When vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears. METHODS: In total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January-5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey-injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears. RESULTS: In total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = <0.001 and injection fears, r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Across the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. METHODS: A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. RESULTS: 71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

Life-Threatening Bronchospasm.

While Eosinophilic Asthma is frequently underdiagnosed, COPD is often misdiagnosed. This case focusses on a COPD misdiagnosis that had life-threatening consequences. The patient was a 59-year-old, male smoker, who presented to the Emergency Department with a week's history of increasing shortness of breath. On presentation, severe respiratory acidosis persisted acidotic despite Nebulisers, Oxygen, Steroids, and Magnesium. He was intubated for two weeks and had severe bronchospasm associated with type 2 respiratory failure. Eosinophils on admission were markedly elevated and remained so despite a week of intravenous steroids. As he missed the window for ECMO, we were advised to look at his diagnostic spirometry. Surprisingly, the spirometry done by his general practitioner, two years prior, showed Asthma not COPD. His blood eosinophils were elevated then, too. A revised diagnosis of Eosinophilic Asthma was given. Intravenous steroids were increased, and nebulised steroids were started. Soon thereafter, his condition improved, and he was stepped down from Intensive care. Hopefully, this case report increases physician knowledge of the different Asthma phenotypes and reduces incidences where correct treatment is only started during an avoidable life-threatening exacerbation.

Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme depends on mass participation: the greater the number of people vaccinated, the less risk to the population. Concise, persuasive messaging is crucial, particularly given substantial levels of vaccine hesitancy in the UK. Our aim was to test which types of written information about COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to a statement of efficacy and safety, might increase vaccine acceptance. METHODS: For this single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to recruit 15 000 adults in the UK, who were quota sampled to be representative. Participants were randomly assigned equally across ten information conditions stratified by level of vaccine acceptance (willing, doubtful, or strongly hesitant). The control information condition comprised the safety and effectiveness statement taken from the UK National Health Service website; the remaining conditions addressed collective benefit, personal benefit, seriousness of the pandemic, and safety concerns. After online provision of vaccination information, participants completed the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (outcome measure; score range 7-35) and the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale (mediation measure). The primary outcome was willingness to be vaccinated. Participants were analysed in the groups they were allocated. p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN37254291. FINDINGS: From Jan 19 to Feb 5, 2021, 15 014 adults were recruited. Vaccine hesitancy had reduced from 26·9% the previous year to 16·9%, so recruitment was extended to Feb 18 to recruit 3841 additional vaccine-hesitant adults. 12 463 (66·1%) participants were classified as willing, 2932 (15·6%) as doubtful, and 3460 (18·4%) as strongly hesitant (ie, report that they will avoid being vaccinated for as long as possible or will never get vaccinated). Information conditions did not alter COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in those willing or doubtful (adjusted p values >0·70). In those strongly hesitant, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reduced, in comparison to the control condition, by personal benefit information (mean difference -1·49, 95% CI -2·16 to -0·82; adjusted p=0·0015), directly addressing safety concerns about speed of development (-0·91, -1·58 to -0·23; adjusted p=0·0261), and a combination of all information (-0·86, -1·53 to -0·18; adjusted p=0·0313). In those strongly hesitant, provision of personal benefit information reduced hesitancy to a greater extent than provision of information on the collective benefit of not personally getting ill (-0·97, 95% CI -1·64 to -0·30; adjusted p=0·0165) or the collective benefit of not transmitting the virus (-1·01, -1·68 to -0·35; adjusted p=0·0150). Ethnicity and gender were found to moderate information condition outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, provision of information on personal benefit reduces hesitancy to a greater extent than information on collective benefits. Where perception of risk from vaccines is most salient, decision making becomes centred on the personal. As such, messaging that stresses the counterbalancing personal benefits is likely to prove most effective. The messaging from this study could be used in public health communications. Going forwards, the study highlights the need for future health campaigns to engage with the public on the terrain that is most salient to them. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Making priors a priority.

When we build a predictive model of a drug property we rigorously assess its predictive accuracy, but we are rarely able to address the most important question, "How useful will the model be in making a decision in a practical context?" To answer this requires an understanding of the prior probability distribution ("the prior") and hence prevalence of negative outcomes due to the property being assessed. In this perspective, we illustrate the importance of the prior to assess the utility of a model in different contexts: to select or eliminate compounds, to prioritise compounds for further investigation using more expensive screens, or to combine models for different properties to select compounds with a balance of properties. In all three contexts, a better understanding of the prior probabilities of adverse events due to key factors will improve our ability to make good decisions in drug discovery, finding higher quality molecules more efficiently.

Gender disparity and implicit gender bias amongst doctors in intensive care medicine: A 'disease' we need to recognise and treat.

UK medical schools have trained equal numbers of male and female doctors for almost 20 years. However, within intensive care medicine only 22% of consultants are female. This article uses the classic descriptors of a disease to explain how unconscious gender bias leads to gender disparity. It provides an introduction and summary of the literature explaining how unconscious biases are formed. It then shows how through overvaluing classically male, or agentic traits, intensive care medicine is at high risk of perpetuating gender disparity to the detriment of the whole speciality. Finally, it covers practical options on how to improve bias awareness and gender disparity nationally and locally within intensive care medicine.

Low yield of unselected testing in patients with acutely abnormal liver function tests.

OBJECTIVES: To audit the diagnostic yield and cost implications of the use of a 'liver screen' for inpatients with abnormal liver function tests. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective audit of inpatients with abnormal liver function tests. We analysed all investigations ordered including biochemistry, immunology, virology and radiology. The final diagnosis was ascertained in each case, and the diagnostic yield and cost per positive diagnosis for each investigation were calculated. SETTING: St Thomas' NHS Trust. PARTICIPANTS: All inpatients investigated for abnormal liver function tests over a 12-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We calculated the percentage of courses due to each diagnosis, the yield of each investigation and the cost per positive diagnosis for each investigation. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients were included, and a final diagnosis was made in 224 patients (73%) on the basis of both clinical data and investigations. There was considerable heterogeneity in the tests included in an acute liver screen. History and ultrasound yielded the most diagnoses (40% and 30%, respectively). The yield of autoimmune and metabolic screens was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the low yield of unselected testing in patients with abnormal liver function tests. A thorough history, ultrasound and testing for blood-borne viruses are the cornerstones of diagnosis. Specialist input should be sought before further testing. Prospective studies to evaluate the yield and cost-effectiveness of different testing strategies are needed.

Accidental overdose in the deep shade of night: a warning on the assumed safety of 'natural substances'.

There is an increasing use of herbal remedies and medicines, with a commonly held belief that natural substances are safe. We present the case of a 50-year-old woman who was a trained herbalist and had purchased an 'Atropa belladonna (deadly nightshade) preparation'. Attempting to combat her insomnia, late one evening she deliberately ingested a small portion of this, approximately 50 mL. Unintentionally, this was equivalent to a very large (15 mg) dose of atropine and she presented in an acute anticholinergic syndrome (confused, tachycardic and hypertensive) to our accident and emergency department. She received supportive management in our intensive treatment unit including mechanical ventilation. Fortunately, there were no long-term sequelae from this episode. However, this dramatic clinical presentation does highlight the potential dangers posed by herbal remedies. Furthermore, this case provides clinicians with an important insight into potentially dangerous products available legally within the UK. To help clinicians' understanding of this our discussion explains the manufacture and 'dosing' of the A. belladonna preparation.

A cry for help: time to re-think the patient call bell in an ageing population.

Historically, the patient call bell has been the mechanism by which patients can alert a health-care worker to provide help. The authors were concerned that, in an increasingly comorbid population, this method of raising help was not fit for purpose. They therefore reviewed every level 3 bed space (n = 283) in a district general hospital over a 2-week period and assessed the usability of the call bell at each occupied bed. The call bells were on average 82 cm away from the bed. More worryingly, over one third (38.1%) of all inpatients were unable to understand independently the role of the call bell and how to use it. The authors conclude that, in times of immense inpatient bed pressures, it is critical that there are robust strategies to highlight the significant number of patients who cannot use the call bell and ensure they are given an appropriate ward location.

Overcoming psychological barriers to good discovery decisions.

Better individual and team decision-making should enhance R&D performance. Reproducible biases affecting human decision-making, known as cognitive biases, are well understood by psychologists. These threaten objectivity and balance and so are credible causes for continuing unpleasant surprises in Development and high operating costs. For four of the most common and insidious cognitive biases, we consider the risks to R&D decision-making and contrast current practice with use of evidence-based medicine by healthcare practitioners. Feedback on problem-solving performance in simulated environments could be one of the simplest ways to help teams improve their selection of compounds and effective screening sequences. Computational tools that encourage objective consideration of all of the available information might also contribute.