Applying a Primary Health Care Approach to Closing the Human Resource for Health Gaps for Immunization.

This perspective is focused on the evidence on human resources for health (HRH) solutions for immunization, as a part of a primary health care (PHC) approach.. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and 50 years since the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) clocks 50 years since its inception. was initiated, evidence and experience demonstrate the significant HRH gaps in many countries and globally, and how countries are seeking innovative ways of closing them with limited resources. The aim of this perspective article is to highlight the growing gap between the needs and the realities related to health workforce for PHC, including immunization, and to call for increasing the visibility of HRH within global and national immunization agendas. This perspective highlights key guidelines and tools to improve HRH, such as integrating immunization and primary health care, addressing the mental health needs of the health workforce, addressing gender-related issues, rationalizing the roles and composition of PHC workforce teams, and meeting the surge requirements related to health emergencies.

Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore UK public decisions around whether or not to get COVID-19 vaccines, and the facilitators and barriers behind participants' decisions. DESIGN: This qualitative study consisted of six online focus groups conducted between 15th March and 22nd April 2021. Data were analysed using a framework approach. SETTING: Focus groups took place via online videoconferencing (Zoom). PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n = 29) were a diverse group (by ethnicity, age and gender) UK residents aged 18 years and older. RESULTS: We used the World Health Organization's vaccine hesitancy continuum model to look for, and explore, three main types of decisions related to COVID-19 vaccines: vaccine acceptance, vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy (or vaccine delay). Two reasons for vaccine delay were identified: delay due to a perceived need for more information and delay until vaccine was "required" in the future. Nine themes were identified: three main facilitators (Vaccination as a social norm; Vaccination as a necessity; Trust in science) and six main barriers (Preference for "natural immunity"; Concerns over possible side effects; Perceived lack of information; Distrust in government;; Conspiracy theories; "Covid echo chambers") to vaccine uptake. CONCLUSION: In order to address vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy, it is useful to understand the reasons behind people's decisions to accept or refuse an offer of a vaccine, and to listen to them and engage with, rather than dismiss, these reasons. Those working in public health or health communication around vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, in and beyond the UK, might benefit from incorporating the facilitators and barriers found in this study.

Development of indicators for integrated antenatal care service provision: a feasibility study in Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi, Senegal and Sierra Leone.

OBJECTIVES: While service integration has gained prominence as an objective of many global initiatives, there is no widely recognised single definition of integration nor a clear understanding of how programmes are integrated into health systems to achieve improved health outcomes. This study aims to review measurement approaches for integrated antenatal care (ANC) services, propose and operationalise indicators for measuring ANC service integration and inform an integrated ANC indicator recommendation for use in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: Feasibility study. SETTING: Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi, Senegal and Sierra Leone. METHODS: Our six-step approach included: (1) conceptualise ANC service integration models; (2) conduct a targeted literature review on measurement of ANC service integration; (3) develop criteria for ANC service integration indicators; (4) propose indicators for ANC service integration; (5) use extant data to operationalise the indicators; and (6) synthesise information to make an integrated ANC indicator recommendation for use in LMICs. RESULTS: Given the multidimensionality of integration, we outlined three models for conceptualising ANC service integration: integrated health systems, continuity of care and coordinated care. Looking across ANC service integration estimates, there were large differences between estimates for ANC service integration depending on the model used, and in some countries, the ANC integration indicator definition within a model. No one integrated ANC indicator was consistently the highest estimate for ANC service integration. However, continuity of care was consistently the lowest estimate for ANC service integration. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated ANC services are foundational to ensuring universal health coverage. However, our findings demonstrate the complexities in monitoring indicators of ANC service quality using extant data in LMICs. Given the challenges, it is recommended that countries focus on monitoring measures of service quality. In addition, efforts should be made to improve data collection tools and routine health information systems to better capture measures of service integration.

Public perceptions of non-adherence to pandemic protection measures by self and others: A study of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Novel viral pandemics present significant challenges to global public health. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. social distancing) are an important means through which to control the transmission of such viruses. One of the key factors determining the effectiveness of such measures is the level of public adherence to them. Research to date has focused on quantitative exploration of adherence and non-adherence, with a relative lack of qualitative exploration of the reasons for non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To explore participants' perceptions of non-adherence to COVID-19 policy measures by self and others in the UK, focusing on perceived reasons for non-adherence. METHODS: Qualitative study comprising 12 focus groups conducted via video-conferencing between 25th September and 13th November 2020. Participants were 51 UK residents aged 18 and above, reflecting a range of ages, genders and race/ethnicities. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Participants reported seeing an increase in non-adherence in others over the course of the pandemic. Reports of non-adherence in self were lower than reports of non-adherence in others. Analysis revealed six main themes related to participants' reported reasons for non-adherence in self and others: (1) 'Alert fatigue' (where people find it difficult to follow, or switch off from, information about frequently changing rules or advice) (2) Inconsistent rules (3) Lack of trust in government (4) Learned Helplessness (5) Resistance and rebelliousness (6)The impact of vaccines on risk perception. Participants perceived a number of systemic failures (e.g. unclear policy, untrustworthy policymakers) to strongly contribute to two forms non-adherence-violations and errors. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that latent and systemic failures-in the form of policy decisions that are commonly experienced as too changeable, inconsistent and confusing, and policy makers that are commonly perceived as untrustworthy-may play a significant role in creating the conditions that enable or encourage non-adherence.

Public attitudes towards COVID-19 contact tracing apps: A UK-based focus group study.

BACKGROUND: During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, one of the key components of many countries' strategies to reduce the spread of the virus is contact tracing. OBJECTIVE: To explore public attitudes to a COVID-19 contact tracing app in the United Kingdom. SETTING: Online video-conferencing. PARTICIPANTS: 27 participants, UK residents aged 18 years and older. METHODS: Qualitative study consisting of six focus groups carried out between 1st-12th May, 2020 (39-50 days into the UK 'lockdown'). RESULTS: Participants were divided as to whether or not they felt they would use the app. Analysis revealed five themes: (1) lack of information and misconceptions surrounding COVID-19 contact tracing apps; (2) concerns over privacy; (3) concerns over stigma; (4)concerns over uptake; and (5) contact tracing as the 'greater good'. Concerns over privacy, uptake and stigma were particularly significant amongst those stated they will not be using the app, and the view that the app is for the 'greater good' was particularly significant amongst those who stated they will be using the app. One of the most common misconceptions about the app was that it could allow users to specifically identify and map COVID-19 cases amongst their contacts and in their vicinity. CONCLUSIONS: Our participants were torn over whether digital contact tracing is a good idea or not, and views were heavily influenced by moral reasoning. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patients were involved in this study. The public were not involved in the development of the research questions, research design or outcome measures. A pilot focus group with participants not included in the present paper was used to help test and refine the focus group questions. Summary results were disseminated via email to participants prior to publication for feedback and comment.

Public perceptions and experiences of social distancing and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a UK-based focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored UK public perceptions and experiences of social distancing and social isolation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: This qualitative study comprised five focus groups, carried out online during the early stages of the UK's stay at home order ('lockdown'), and analysed using a thematic approach. SETTING: Focus groups took place via online videoconferencing. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n=27) were all UK residents aged 18 years and older, representing a range of gender, ethnic, age and occupational backgrounds. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed four main themes: (1) loss-participants' loss of (in-person) social interaction, loss of income and loss of structure and routine led to psychological and emotional 'losses' such as loss of motivation, loss of meaning and loss of self-worth; (2) criticisms of government communication-participants reported a lack of trust in government and a lack of clarity in the guidelines around social distancing and isolation; (3) adherence-participants reported high self-adherence to social distancing guidelines but reported seeing or hearing of non-adherence in others; (4) uncertainty around social reintegration and the future-some participants felt they would have lingering concerns over social contact while others were eager to return to high levels of social activity.Most participants, and particularly those in low-paid or precarious employment, reported feeling that the social distancing and isolation associated with COVID-19 policy has had negative impacts on their mental health and well-being during the early stages of the UK's 'lockdown'. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid response is necessary in terms of public health programming to mitigate the mental health impacts of COVID-19 social distancing and isolation. Social distancing and isolation 'exit strategies' must account for the fact that, although some individuals will voluntarily or habitually continue to socially distance, others will seek high levels of social engagement as soon as possible.