Facilitators and barriers to vaccination uptake in pregnancy: A qualitative systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination during pregnancy protects both the mother and the foetus from vaccine-preventable diseases. However, uptake of the recommended vaccines (influenza, pertussis, COVID-19) by pregnant women remains low in Europe and the USA. Understanding the reasons for this is crucial to inform strategies to increase vaccination rates in pregnant women. This qualitative systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to vaccination against influenza, pertussis/whooping cough and COVID-19 during pregnancy and identify possible strategies to increase vaccination rates. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases, including Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, WHO database, Embase and grey literature to identify qualitative studies that explored barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake among pregnant women (PROSPERO CRD42023399488). The search was limited to studies published between 2012 and 2022 conducted in high-income countries with established vaccination programmes during pregnancy. Studies were thematically analysed and underwent quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute validated critical appraisal tool for qualitative research. RESULTS: Out of 2681 articles screened, 28 studies (n = 1573 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Five overarching themes emerged relating to personal, provider and systemic factors. Barriers to vaccine uptake included concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, lack of knowledge about vaccines' benefits and necessity, fear of adverse effects on the foetus or mother and low perception of disease severity. Facilitators included recommendations from trusted healthcare providers, easy access to vaccination, clear communication on the benefits and safety of vaccination, and positive social influences from family and friends. Strategies for increasing vaccination uptake included strong and proactive vaccine recommendations by trusted healthcare professionals, provision of vaccines during routine antenatal care, and clear and consistent communication about vaccines addressing pregnant women's concerns. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the need for interventions that address the identified barriers to vaccine uptake among pregnant women. Recommendation from a healthcare provider can play a significant role in promoting vaccine uptake, as can clear risk/benefit communication and convenient access to vaccination. Addressing concerns about vaccine safety and providing accurate information about vaccines is also important.

Regulatory Standards and Guidance for the Use of Health Apps for Self-Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Health apps are increasingly recognized as crucial tools for enhancing health care delivery. Many countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, can substantially benefit from using health apps to support self-management and thus help to achieve universal health coverage and the third sustainable development goal. However, most health apps published in app stores are of unknown or poor quality, which poses a risk to patient safety. Regulatory standards and guidance can help address this risk and promote patient safety. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to assess the regulatory standards and guidance for health apps supporting evidence-based best practices in sub-Saharan Africa with a focus on self-management. METHODS: A methodological framework for scoping reviews was applied. A search strategy was built and applied across the following databases, gray literature sources, and institutional websites: PubMed, Scopus, World Health Organization (WHO) African Index Medicus, OpenGrey, WHO Regional Office for Africa Library, ICTworks, WHO Directory of eHealth policies, HIS Strengthening Resource Center, International Telecommunication Union, Ministry of Health websites, and Google. The search covered the period between January 2005 and January 2024. The findings were analyzed using a deductive descriptive content analysis. The policy analysis framework was adapted and used to organize the findings. The Reporting Items for Stakeholder Analysis tool guided the identification and mapping of key stakeholders based on their roles in regulating health apps for self-management. RESULTS: The study included 49 documents from 31 sub-Saharan African countries. While all the documents were relevant for stakeholder identification and mapping, only 3 regulatory standards and guidance contained relevant information on regulation of health apps. These standards and guidance primarily aimed to build mutual trust; promote integration, inclusion, and equitable access to services; and address implementation issues and poor coordination. They provided guidance on systems quality, software acquisition and maintenance, security measures, data exchange, interoperability and integration, involvement of relevant stakeholders, and equitable access to services. To enhance implementation, the standards highlight that legal authority, coordination of activities, building capacity, and monitoring and evaluation are required. A number of stakeholders, including governments, regulatory bodies, funders, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, academia, and the health care community, were identified to play key roles in regulating health apps. CONCLUSIONS: Health apps have huge potential to support self-management in sub-Saharan Africa, but the lack of regulatory standards and guidance constitutes a major barrier. Hence, for these apps to be safely and effectively integrated into health care, more attention should be given to regulation. Learning from countries with effective regulations can help sub-Saharan Africa build a more robust and responsive regulatory system, ensuring the safe and beneficial use of health apps across the region. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025714.

Understanding the views of adult migrants around catch-up vaccination for missed routine immunisations to define strategies to improve coverage: A UK in-depth interview study.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization's (WHO) Immunization Agenda 2030 emphasises ensuring equitable access to vaccination across the life course. This includes placing an emphasis on migrant populations who may have missed key childhood vaccines, doses, and boosters due to disrupted healthcare systems and the migration process, or differing vaccination schedules in home countries. Guidelines exist in the UK for offering catch-up vaccinations to adolscent and adult migrants with incomplete or uncertain vaccination status (including MMR, Td-IPV, MenACWY, HPV), but emerging evidence suggests awareness and implementation in primary care is poor. It is unclear whether patient-level barriers to uptake of catch-up vaccinations also exist. We explored experiences and views around catch-up vaccination among adult migrants from a range of backgrounds, to define strategies for improving catch-up vaccination policy and practice. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out in two phases with adult migrant populations (refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, those with no recourse to public funds) on views and experiences around vaccination, involving a team of peer researchers from specific migrant communities trained through the study. In Phase 1, we conducted remote interviews with migrants resident in the UK for < 10 years, from diverse backgrounds. In Phase 2, we engaged specifically Congolese and Angolan migrants as part of a community-based participatory study. Topic guides were developed iteratively and piloted. Participants were recruited using purposive, opportunistic and snowball sampling methods. Interviews were conducted in English (interpreters offered), Lingala or French and were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic framework approach in NVivo 12. RESULTS: 71 participants (39 in Phase 1, 32 in Phase 2) were interviewed (Mean age 43.6 [SD:12.4] years, 69% female, mean 9.5 [SD:7] years in the UK). Aside from COVID-19 vaccines, most participants reported never having been offered vaccinations or asked about their vaccination history since arriving in the UK as adults. Few participants mentioned being offered specific catch-up vaccines (e.g. MMR/Td-IPV) when attending a healthcare facility on arrival in the UK. Vaccines such as flu vaccines, pregnancy-related or pre-travel vaccination were more commonly mentioned. In general, participants were not aware of adult catch-up vaccination but regarded it positively when it was explained. A few participants expressed concerns about side-effects, risks/inconveniences associated with access (e.g. links to immigration authorities, travel costs), preference for natural remedies, and hesitancy to engage in further vaccination campaigns due to the intensity of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. Trust was a major factor in vaccination decisions, with distinctions noted within and between groups; some held a healthcare professional's recommendation in high regard, while others were less trusting towards the healthcare system because of negative experiences of the NHS and past experiences of discrimination, injustice and marginalisation by wider authorities. CONCLUSIONS: The major barrier to adult catch-up vaccination for missed routine immunisations and doses in migrant communities in the UK is the limited opportunities, recommendations or tailored vaccination information presented to migrants by health services. This could be improved with financial incentives for provision of catch-up vaccination in UK primary care, alongside training of healthcare professionals to support catch-up immunisation and raise awareness of existing guidelines. It will also be essential to address root causes of mistrust around vaccination, where it exists among migrants, by working closely with communities to understand their needs and meaningfully involving migrant populations in co-producing tailored information campaigns and culturally relevant interventions to improve coverage.

Assigning disease clusters to people: A cohort study of the implications for understanding health outcomes in people with multiple long-term conditions.

Background: Identifying clusters of co-occurring diseases may help characterise distinct phenotypes of Multiple Long-Term Conditions (MLTC). Understanding the associations of disease clusters with health-related outcomes requires a strategy to assign clusters to people, but it is unclear how the performance of strategies compare. Aims: First, to compare the performance of methods of assigning disease clusters to people at explaining mortality, emergency department attendances and hospital admissions over one year. Second, to identify the extent of variation in the associations with each outcome between and within clusters. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of primary care electronic health records in England, including adults with MLTC. Seven strategies were tested to assign patients to fifteen disease clusters representing 212 LTCs, identified from our previous work. We tested the performance of each strategy at explaining associations with the three outcomes over 1 year using logistic regression and compared to a strategy using the individual LTCs. Results: 6,286,233 patients with MLTC were included. Of the seven strategies tested, a strategy assigning the count of conditions within each cluster performed best at explaining all three outcomes but was inferior to using information on the individual LTCs. There was a larger range of effect sizes for the individual LTCs within the same cluster than there was between the clusters. Conclusion: Strategies of assigning clusters of co-occurring diseases to people were less effective at explaining health-related outcomes than a person's individual diseases. Furthermore, clusters did not represent consistent relationships of the LTCs within them, which might limit their application in clinical research.

A systematic review of interventions to improve medication adherence in adults with mental-physical multimorbidity in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Medication non-adherence is a significant contributor to healthcare inefficiency, resulting in poor medication management, impaired patient outcomes and ineffective symptom control. This review summarises interventions targeting medication adherence for adults with mental-physical multimorbidity, in primary healthcare settings. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was conducted using Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched for relevant studies. Data were extracted and synthesized using narrative synthesis. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) was used to classify intervention types. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) quality assessment tool. RESULTS: Eleven studies representing 2,279 patients were included. All interventions examined were classified into one EPOC domain, which was delivery arrangements. All included studies examined patients with a physical condition, alongside depression. Seven studies examining coordination of care and management of care processes interventions reported significant improvements in medication adherence attributed to the intervention. Four studies considering the use of information and communication technology observed no changes in medication adherence. CONCLUSION: Interventions that coordinate and manage healthcare processes may help improve how patients adhere to their medication regimes, particularly in patients with mental-physical multimorbidity. However, we still need to better understand how digital health technology can support patients in following their medication regimes. As we face the growing challenges of treating multimorbidity, everyone involved in health services - from providers to policymakers - must be receptive to a more integrated approach to the delivery of healthcare.

Predictors of unplanned emergency hospital admissions among patients aged 65+ with multimorbidity and depression in Northwest London during and after the Covid-19 lockdown in England.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with multimorbidity have an increased likelihood of using unplanned secondary care including emergency department visits and emergency hospitalisations. Those with mental health comorbidities are affected to a greater extent. The Covid-19 pandemic has negatively impacted on psychosocial wellbeing and multimorbidity care, especially among vulnerable older individuals. AIM: To examine the risk of unplanned hospital admissions among patients aged 65+ with multimorbidity and depression in Northwest London, England, during- and post-Covid-19 lockdown. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional data analysis with the Discover-NOW database for Northwest London was conducted. The overall sample consisted of 20,165 registered patients aged 65+ with depression. Two time periods were compared to observe the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown on emergency hospital admissions between 23rd March 2020 to 21st June 2021 (period 1) and equivalent-length post-lockdown period from 22nd June 2021 to 19th September 2022 (period 2). Multivariate logistic regression was conducted on having at least one emergency hospital admission in each period against sociodemographic and multimorbidity-related characteristics. RESULTS: The odds of having an emergency hospitalisation were greater in men than women (OR = 1.19 (lockdown); OR = 1.29 (post-lockdown)), and significantly increased with age, higher deprivation, and greater number of comorbidities in both periods across the majority of categories. There was an inconclusive pattern with ethnicity; with a statistically significant protective effect among Asian (OR = 0.66) and Black ethnicities (OR = 0.67) compared to White patients during post-lockdown period only. CONCLUSION: The likelihood of unplanned hospitalisation was higher in men than women, and significantly increased with age, higher deprivation, and comorbidities. Despite modest increases in magnitude of risk between lockdown and post-lockdown periods, there is evidence to support proactive case-review by multi-disciplinary teams to avoid unplanned admissions, particularly men with multimorbidity and comorbid depression, patients with higher number of comorbidities and greater deprivation. Further work is needed to determine admission reasons, multimorbidity patterns, and other clinical and lifestyle predictors.

Effect of timeframes to define long term conditions and sociodemographic factors on prevalence of multimorbidity using disease code frequency in primary care electronic health records: retrospective study.

Objective: To determine the extent to which the choice of timeframe used to define a long term condition affects the prevalence of multimorbidity and whether this varies with sociodemographic factors. Design: Retrospective study of disease code frequency in primary care electronic health records. Data sources: Routinely collected, general practice, electronic health record data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum were used. Main outcome measures: Adults (≥18 years) in England who were registered in the database on 1 January 2020 were included. Multimorbidity was defined as the presence of two or more conditions from a set of 212 long term conditions. Multimorbidity prevalence was compared using five definitions. Any disease code recorded in the electronic health records for 212 conditions was used as the reference definition. Additionally, alternative definitions for 41 conditions requiring multiple codes (where a single disease code could indicate an acute condition) or a single code for the remaining 171 conditions were as follows: two codes at least three months apart; two codes at least 12 months apart; three codes within any 12 month period; and any code in the past 12 months. Mixed effects regression was used to calculate the expected change in multimorbidity status and number of long term conditions according to each definition and associations with patient age, gender, ethnic group, and socioeconomic deprivation. Results: 9 718 573 people were included in the study, of whom 7 183 662 (73.9%) met the definition of multimorbidity where a single code was sufficient to define a long term condition. Variation was substantial in the prevalence according to timeframe used, ranging from 41.4% (n=4 023 023) for three codes in any 12 month period, to 55.2% (n=5 366 285) for two codes at least three months apart. Younger people (eg, 50-75% probability for 18-29 years v 1-10% for ≥80 years), people of some minority ethnic groups (eg, people in the Other ethnic group had higher probability than the South Asian ethnic group), and people living in areas of lower socioeconomic deprivation were more likely to be re-classified as not multimorbid when using definitions requiring multiple codes. Conclusions: Choice of timeframe to define long term conditions has a substantial effect on the prevalence of multimorbidity in this nationally representative sample. Different timeframes affect prevalence for some people more than others, highlighting the need to consider the impact of bias in the choice of method when defining multimorbidity.

Investigating barriers & facilitators for the successful implementation of the BP@home initiative in London: Primary care perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of a national policy of shielding to safeguard clinically vulnerable patients. To ensure consistent care for high-risk patients with hypertension, NHS England introduced the BP@home initiative to enable patients to self-monitor their blood pressure by providing them with blood pressure monitors. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the initiative based on the experience and perspectives of programme managers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in its implementation in London. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted five semi-structured focus groups and one individual interview with a total of 20 healthcare professionals involved at different levels and stages in the BP@home initiative across four of the five London Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically following the Framework Method. Respondents reported being challenged by the lack of adequate IT, human and financial resources to support the substantial additional workload associated with the programme. These issues resulted in and reinforced the differential engagement capacities of PCNs, practices and patients, thus raising equity concerns among respondents. However respondents also identified several facilitators, including the integration of the eligibility criteria into the electronic health record (EHR), especially when combined with the adoption of practice-specific, pragmatic and opportunistic approaches to the onboarding of patients. Respondents also recommended the provision of blood pressure monitors (BPMs) on prescription, additional funding and training based on needs assessment, the incorporation of BP@home into daily practice and simplification of IT tools, and finally the adoption of a person-centred care approach. Contextualised using the second iteration of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), these findings support key evidence-based recommendations to help streamline the implementation of the BP@home initiative in London's primary care setting. CONCLUSIONS: Programs such as BP@Home are likely to become more common in primary care. To successfully support HCPs' aim to care for their hypertensive patients, their implementation must be accompanied by additional financial, human and training resources, as well as supported task-shifting for capacity building. Future studies should explore the perspectives of HCPs based in other parts of the UK as well as patients' experiences with remote monitoring of blood pressure.

The effects of community interventions on unplanned healthcare use in patients with multimorbidity: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the impact of community-based interventions for multimorbid patients on unplanned healthcare use. The prevalence of multimorbidity (co-existence of multiple chronic conditions) is rapidly increasing and affects one-third of the global population. Patients with multimorbidity have complex healthcare needs and greater unplanned healthcare usage. Community-based interventions allow for continued care of patients outside hospitals, but few studies have explored the effects of these interventions on unplanned healthcare usage. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Cochrane Library online databases were searched. Studies were screened and underwent risk of bias assessment. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis. SETTING: Community-based interventions. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with multimorbidity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Unplanned healthcare usage. RESULTS: Thirteen studies, including a total of 6148 participants, were included. All included studies came from high-income settings and had elderly populations. All studies measured emergency department attendances as their primary outcome. Risk of bias was generally low. Most community interventions were multifaceted with emphasis on education, self-monitoring of symptoms and regular follow-ups. Four studies looked at improved care coordination, advance care planning and palliative care. All 13 studies found a decrease in emergency department visits post-intervention with risk reduction ranging from 0 (95% confidencec interval [CI]: -0.37 to 0.37) to 0.735 (95% CI: 0.688-0.785). CONCLUSIONS: Community-based interventions have potential to reduce emergency department visits in patients with multimorbidity. Identification of specific successful components of interventions was challenging given the overlaps between interventions. Policymakers should recognise the importance of community interventions and aim to integrate aspects of these into existing healthcare structures. Future research should investigate the impact of such interventions with broader participant characteristics.

Multi-infection screening for migrant patients in UK primary care: Challenges and opportunities.

Background: Migrants in Europe face a disproportionate burden of undiagnosed infection, including tuberculosis, blood-borne viruses, and parasitic infections and many belong to an under-immunised group. The European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) has called for innovative strategies to deliver integrated multi-disease screening to migrants within primary care, yet this is poorly implemented in the UK. We did an in-depth qualitative study to understand current practice, barriers and solutions to infectious disease screening in primary care, and to seek feedback on a collaboratively developed digitalised integrated clinical decision-making tool called Health Catch UP!, which supports multi-infection screening for migrant patients. Methods: Two-phase qualitative study of UK primary healthcare professionals, in-depth semi-structured telephone-interviews were conducted. In Phase A, we conducted interviews with clinical staff (general practitioners (GPs), nurses, health-care-assistants (HCAs)); these informed data collection and analysis for phase B (administrative staff). Data were analysed iteratively, using thematic analysis. Results: In phase A, 48 clinicians were recruited (25 GPs, 15 nurses, seven HCAs, one pharmacist) and 16 administrative staff (11 Practice-Managers, five receptionists) in phase B. Respondents were positive about primary care's ability to effectively deliver infectious disease screening. However, we found current infectious disease screening lacks a standardised approach and many practices have no system for screening meaning migrant patients are not always receiving evidence-based care (i.e., NICE/ECDC/UKHSA screening guidelines). Barriers to screening were reported at patient, staff, and system-levels. Respondents reported poor implementation of existing screening initiatives (e.g., regional latent TB screening) citing overly complex pathways that required extensive administrative/clinical time and lacked financial/expert support. Solutions included patient/staff infectious disease champions, targeted training and specialist support, simplified care pathways for screening and management of positive results, and financial incentivisation. Participants responded positively to Health Catch-UP!, stating it would systematically integrate data and support clinical decision-making, increase knowledge, reduce missed screening opportunities, and normalisation of primary care-based infectious disease screening for migrants. Conclusions: Our results suggest that implementation of infectious disease screening in migrant populations is not comprehensively done in UK primary care. Primary health care professionals support the concept of innovative digital tools like Health Catch-UP! and that they could significantly improve disease detection and effective implementation of screening guidance but that they require robust testing and resourcing.

Validating a framework to guide the implementation of high-quality virtual primary care: an international eDelphi study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to support primary care organisations in implementing safe and high-quality virtual consultations. We have previously performed qualitative research to capture the views of 1600 primary care physicians across 20 countries on the main benefits and challenges of using virtual consultations. Subsequently, a prototype of a framework to guide the implementation of high-quality virtual primary care was developed. AIM: To explore general practitioners' perspectives on the appropriateness and relevance of each component of the framework's prototype, to further refine it and optimise its practical use in primary care facilities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants will be primary care physicians with active experience providing virtual care, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. This study will use a systematic and iterative online Delphi research approach (eDelphi), with a minimum of three rounds. A pre-round will be used to circulate items for initial feedback and adjustment. In subsequent rounds, participants will be asked to rate the relevance of the framework's components. Consensus will be defined as >70% of participants agreeing/strongly agreeing or disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with a component. Data will be collected using structured online questionnaires. The primary outcome of the study will be a list of the essential components to be incorporated in the final version of the framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval conceded by the Imperial College London Science, Engineering and Technology Research Ethics Committee (SETREC) (reference no .6559176/2023). Anonymous results will be made available to the public, academic organisations and policymakers.

Attendance at remote versus in-person outpatient appointments in an NHS Trust.

INTRODUCTION: With the growing use of remote appointments within the National Health Service, there is a need to understand potential barriers of access to care for some patients. In this observational study, we examined missed appointments rates, comparing remote and in-person appointments among different patient groups. METHODS: We analysed adult outpatient appointments at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in Northwest London in 2021. Rates of missed appointments per patient were compared between remote versus in-person appointments using negative binomial regression models. Models were stratified by appointment type (first or a follow-up). RESULTS: There were 874,659 outpatient appointments for 189,882 patients, 29.5% of whom missed at least one appointment. Missed rates were 12.5% for remote first appointments and 9.2% for in-person first appointments. Remote and in-person follow-up appointments were missed at similar rates (10.4% and 10.7%, respectively). For remote and in-person appointments, younger patients, residents of more deprived areas, and patients of Black, Mixed and 'other' ethnicities missed more appointments. Male patients missed more in-person appointments, particularly at younger ages, but gender differences were minimal for remote appointments. Patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) missed more first appointments, whether in-person or remote. In follow-up appointments, patients with LTCs missed more in-person appointments but fewer remote appointments. DISCUSSION: Remote first appointments were missed more often than in-person first appointments, follow-up appointments had similar attendance rates for both modalities. Sociodemographic differences in outpatient appointment attendance were largely similar between in-person and remote appointments, indicating no widening of inequalities in attendance due to appointment modality.

Interventions to increase vaccination against COVID-19, influenza and pertussis during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women and their babies face significant risks from three vaccine-preventable diseases: COVID-19, influenza and pertussis. However, despite these vaccines' proven safety and effectiveness, uptake during pregnancy remains low. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42023399488; January 2012-December 2022 following PRISMA guidelines) of interventions to increase COVID-19/influenza/pertussis vaccination in pregnancy. We searched nine databases, including grey literature. Two independent investigators extracted data; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models to estimate pooled effect sizes. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics. RESULTS: From 2681 articles, we identified 39 relevant studies (n = 168 262 participants) across nine countries. Fifteen studies (39%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs); the remainder were observational cohort, quality-improvement or cross-sectional studies. The quality of 18% (7/39) was strong. Pooled results of interventions to increase influenza vaccine uptake (18 effect estimates from 12 RCTs) showed the interventions were effective but had a small effect (risk ratio = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03, 1.13). However, pooled results of interventions to increase pertussis vaccine uptake (10 effect estimates from six RCTs) showed no clear benefit (risk ratio = 0.98, 95% CI 0.94, 1.03). There were no relevant RCTs for COVID-19. Interventions addressed the 'three Ps': patient-, provider- and policy-level strategies. At the patient level, clear recommendations from healthcare professionals backed by text reminders/written information were strongly associated with increased vaccine uptake, especially tailored face-to-face interventions, which addressed women's concerns, dispelled myths and highlighted benefits. Provider-level interventions included educating healthcare professionals about vaccines' safety and effectiveness and reminders to offer vaccinations routinely. Policy-level interventions included financial incentives, mandatory vaccination data fields in electronic health records and ensuring easy availability of vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions had a small effect on increasing influenza vaccination. Training healthcare providers to promote vaccinations during pregnancy is crucial and could be enhanced by utilizing mobile health technologies.

Uptake and adoption of the NHS App in England: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Technological advances have led to the use of patient portals that give people digital access to their personal health information. The NHS App was launched in January 2019 as a 'front door' to digitally enabled health services. AIM: To evaluate patterns of uptake of the NHS App, subgroup differences in registration, and the impact of COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: An observational study using monthly NHS App user data at general-practice level in England was conducted. METHOD: Descriptive statistics and time-series analysis explored monthly NHS App use from January 2019-May 2021. Interrupted time-series models were used to identify changes in the level and trend of use of different functionalities, before and after the first COVID-19 lockdown. Negative binomial regression assessed differences in app registration by markers of general-practice level sociodemographic variables. RESULT: Between January 2019 and May 2021, there were 8 524 882 NHS App downloads and 4 449 869 registrations, with a 4-fold increase in App downloads when the COVID Pass feature was introduced. Analyses by sociodemographic data found 25% lower registrations in the most deprived practices (P<0.001), and 44% more registrations in the largest sized practices (P<0.001). Registration rates were 36% higher in practices with the highest proportion of registered White patients (P<0.001), 23% higher in practices with the largest proportion of 15-34-year-olds (P<0.001) and 2% lower in practices with highest proportion of people with long-term care needs (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The uptake of the NHS App substantially increased post-lockdown, most significantly after the NHS COVID Pass feature was introduced. An unequal pattern of app registration was identified, and the use of different functions varied. Further research is needed to understand these patterns of inequalities and their impact on patient experience.