Factors influencing staff attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination in care homes in England: A qualitative study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2947058/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Factors influencing staff attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination in care homes in England: A qualitative study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2947058/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 06 Oct, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Health Services Research →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background.

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people living and working in UK care homes causing high mortality rates. Vaccinating staff members and residents is considered the most effective intervention to reduce infection and its transmission rates. However, uptake of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in care homes was variable. We sought to investigate factors influencing uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in care home staff to inform strategies to increase vaccination uptake and inform future preparedness.

Methods.

Twenty care home staff including managerial and administrative staff, nurses, healthcare practitioners and support staff from nine care homes across England participated in semi-structured telephone interviews (March-June 2021) exploring attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine and factors influencing uptake. We used thematic analysis to generate themes which were subsequently deductively mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. The Behavioural Change Wheel (BCW) was used to identify potential intervention strategies to address identified influences.

Results. Enablers to vaccine uptake

included the willingness to protect care home residents, staff and family/friends from infection and the belief that vaccination provided a way back to normality (reflective motivation); convenience of vaccination and access to accurate information (physical opportunity); and a supporting social environment around them favouring vaccination (social opportunity). Barriers included fears about side-effects (automatic motivation); a lack of trust due to the quick release of the vaccine (reflective motivation); and feeling pressurised to accept vaccination if mandatory (automatic motivation).

Conclusions

We identified influences on COVID-19 vaccine uptake by care home staff that can inform the implementation of future vaccination programmes. Strategies likely to support uptake include information campaigns and facilitating communication between staff and managers to openly discuss concerns regarding possible vaccination side effects. Freedom of choice played an important role in the decision to be vaccinated suggesting that the decision to mandate vaccination may have unintended behavioural consequences.

care homes

COVID-19 vaccine

COVID-19 pandemic

care home employees

mandatory vaccination

behavioural influences

Care homes in England have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic with high rates of infection and excess mortality in residents (Morciano et al., 2020; Schultze et al., 2022) and staff members (Burton et al., 2020; Ladhani et al., 2020). In May 2020, care home residents accounted for nearly 54% of all COVID-19 related death (ONS, 2020). While there was substantial evidence in terms of epidemiological data of the adverse impact of COVID-19 on care homes residents (Burton et al., 2021; Daras et al., 2021; Schultze et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2022), there was much less evidence into the impact of the pandemic on employees, their working practices and their attitudes towards the prospective vaccination (Giebel et al., 2021; Tulloch et al., 2021).

With increasing knowledge of how infections spread and the role of asymptomatic transmission (McMichael et al., 2020), ways of working in care homes changed in response to the pandemic (Ní Shé et al., 2020). For example, since June 2020, care home residents and staff have been offered regular testing for SARS-CoV-2 using nasopharyngeal swabs, which has made it easier for care homes to detect, control and reduce the spread of COVID-19 infection (Micocci et al., 2021). A range of public health disease control measures have been introduced such as visitor restrictions (Giebel et al., 2021; NHS., October 2021; Rajan et al., 2020). However, the most significant intervention to reduce infection and its transmission was the development of vaccines (Brown et al., 2021; Cabezas C, 2021; McConaghy et al., 2022; Shrotri et al., 2021).

In the UK, care home staff and residents were prioritised for vaccination against COVID-19, which began with the Pfizer (BNT162b) vaccine on December 8th 2020, and was shortly followed by approval of the AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) vaccine (JCVI, December 2020). The majority of residents received a two-dose primary vaccine course and have subsequently received a third dose (booster vaccination). However, at the time of this study (March-June 2021), uptake of vaccination by care home workers was variable (Swift & Bunn, 2022; Tulloch et al., 2021), and this was of significant public health concern. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) reported that SAGE’s social care working group advice was that 80% of staff and 90% of residents needed to have had their first dose of the vaccine to provide a minimum level of protection against outbreaks of COVID-19. However, only 53% of homes with residents over 65 in England were meeting this threshold in the first few months of the vaccine rollout. By April 2021, the staff vaccination rate was below 80% in 89 local authority areas – more than half – and all 32 London boroughs, and there were 27 local authority areas with a staff vaccination rate below 70%, based on DHSC reports (Community Care, April 2021; Dyer 2021; Swift & Bunn, 2022).

Several studies in different countries have been conducted to explore concerns and population characteristics associated with vaccination uptake (Cook et al., 2022; Roy et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021). A high number of studies focused on examining vaccination intentions and behaviour in the general public to control virus transmission (e.g. Burke et al., 2021; Dube et al., 2021; Goffe et al., 2021; Sherman et al., 2021). Some research has also examined healthcare workers’ vaccine attitudes and behaviours, as healthcare workers play a key role in limiting the COVID-19 transmission impact by acting as a vector for potential transmission between patients or care facilities, by role modelling for preventive behaviours, and also, helping vaccinate others. (e.g. Wang et al., 2020; Kwok KO et al., 2021; Ng TWY et al., 2020; Biswas et al., 2021). However, very few studies examined vaccination attitudes and beliefs of social care workers working in care homes, particularly in the UK context (Tulloch et al., 2021; McConaghy et al., 2021; Dennis et al., 2022). Those that focused on care homes found that care home workers’ attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination varied, with some studies reporting that the majority of social care staff had no reservations to get vaccinated immediately while others reported that staff wanted to wait or were reluctant to accept the vaccine (Burton et al., 2020; Dennis et al., 2022; Tulloch et al., 2021; Unroe et al., 2021).

However, these studies did not use a theory-informed approach to study vaccine uptake. Vaccination is a form of human behaviour, which could thus be understood through application of behavioural science. The benefits of drawing on theory to investigate influences on behaviour and inform intervention development are widely recognized and emphasised in best practice intervention development and evaluation frameworks, such as the MRC Complex Interventions Guidance (Davidoff et al., 2015; Skivington et al., 2021). Behavioural science theories provide explicit statements regarding processes hypothesised to regulate behaviour, which can in turn be used to explain and predict behaviours. Using theory enables drawing from, and contributing to, the wider literature and evidence-base on what influences behaviour change (Atkins et al., 2017). One simple, integrated model of behaviour change is the COM-B model, which posits that in order for a desired behaviour to occur, the individual must have the Capability (knowledge and skills), Opportunity (physical and social) and Motivation (reflective and automatic) to do so (Michie et al., 2011b). The model has been used to explain potential influences on a number of protective behaviours related to COVID-19, including vaccination uptake in the general population (Michie, 2022; Williams et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2022; Yeo et al., 2022). The COM-B model is mapped to frameworks such as the Behaviour Change Wheel and Behaviour Change Techniques taxonomy (Michie et al., 2013; Michie et al., 2011a) to suggest which types of behaviour change strategies are more likely to be effective in addressing influences within different domains of capability, opportunity and motivation. This facilitates more systematic and transparent step-wise progression from understanding factors influencing behaviour to generating concrete suggestions for how best to change the behaviour of interest. However, to our knowledge, behavioural science frameworks have not been applied to investigate factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination uptake in social care professionals working in care home settings, and to generate suggestions for intervention approaches to support vaccine uptake in this context.

Therefore, the present study aimed to apply behavioural science frameworks to identify influences on COVID-19 vaccination uptake amongst staff working in UK care homes. Identifying such influences is a pre-requisite for addressing vaccine hesitancy and enabling future preparedness. Consequently, a secondary aim was to generate recommendations for potential behaviour change intervention strategies to support vaccine uptake.

The specific research questions addressed were:

(1) Which factors related to capability, opportunity, and motivation influence care home staff’s decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

(2) Which behaviour change strategies could help target key reported influences in order to reduce vaccine hesitancy and support uptake?

Study design

This study is part of the larger VIVALDI programme of research (Krutikov et al., 2021; Shrotri et al., 2021), which collected and analysed epidemiological data on the impact the COVID-19 in care homes residents and staff in England. VIVALDI included a larger number of participants from a wide selection of care homes. This study was part of a qualitative work package, which recruited staff employed in care homes that were already participating in VIVALDI.

Participants and recruitment

Three large care home providers in England who were participating in the VIVALDI study (Krutikov et al., 2021) were asked to identify care homes that might be willing to take part in interviews (convenience sampling). Within participating care homes, a purposive sampling approach was used to sample individual staff to take part. We aimed for the overall sample to include representation of as wide a range of staff roles in care homes as possible. This included both staff working in clinical roles (e.g., care assistants, nurses), as well as managers and non-clinical staff (e.g., kitchen, domestic, reception staff). Participants were offered an incentive of £50 for taking part.

Procedure

All interviews were conducted between March and June 2021 by four researchers (BF, VA, GF, AJ). Care home managers were asked to circulate a study advert and information sheet to staff. Staff who were potentially interested in participating were contacted by a study researcher to arrange an interview at a time and date that was of convenience to them. Participants provided consent to the study by signing a consent form prior to commencing the interview, and in one occasion one participant provided verbal consent at the start of the interview and completed and retuned the consent form to researchers after the interview. All interviews were conducted virtually using Microsoft Teams. Audio-recordings of interviews were transcribed verbatim and anonymised so that no individual or care home facility could be identified from the data.

Interview guide

Data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide (see Appendix). This paper only reports the data extracted from the transcripts related to vaccine uptake. The findings from other sections of the interview guided will be reported elsewhere. The section on vaccine uptake included questions on whether or not participants had taken the vaccine (uptake), and factors potentially influencing the decision to be vaccinated or not (i.e., barriers and enablers). These questions were structured around the domains of the COM-B model, whereby the topic guide included at least one question per domain (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation) in order to ensure the broad range of potential influences on vaccine uptake were being considered. Questions were asked in an open, non-leading way, with unstructured, flexible follow-on prompts used as necessary to further unpack participants’ initial responses.

Data analysis

A combined inductive thematic and deductive framework analysis approach was conducted (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Taylor et al., 2018) We first conducted an inductive thematic analysis to generate themes from the transcripts regarding perceived barriers and enablers to vaccination uptake, without being restricted by the pre-defined domains of the COM-B model. Meaningful chunks of text were extracted from transcripts and descriptive summaries generated. These descriptive summaries were added to a data extraction matrix, alongside supporting and illustrative quotes. Similar in content summaries were then grouped together, and an inductive theme label was generated. Themes were classified as either a barrier to vaccination uptake, an enabler to uptake, or a mixed influence (i.e., reported as a barrier for some participants and an enabler for others). Inductively generated themes were then subsequently deductively coded to the domains of the COM-B model they were judged to best represent.

All interviews were independently coded by four researchers (BF, VA, GF, AJ) and seven out of twenty interviews were double coded by a second researcher. All researchers had training and experience in qualitative data analysis. Any disagreements regarding coding were discussed in consensus meetings with the involved coders until an agreement on the coding was reached.

Following identification of barriers and enablers, we consulted the Behaviour Change Wheel (Michie et al., 2011b) to generate suggestions for potential interventions to address reported barriers and enablers and increase vaccine uptake in this context. The Behaviour Change Wheel summarises 9 broad intervention strategies for changing behaviour (i.e., education, training, persuasion, enablement, incentivisation, coercion, restriction, environmental restructuring, and modelling). These are further broken down into component behaviour change techniques (BCTs), defined as the ‘active ingredients’ of a behaviour change intervention (Michie et al., 2013, p.82). The Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1 defines 93 unique BCTs. Both the Behaviour Change Wheel and Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy have been mapped to COM-B, in matrices which suggest which types of intervention strategies are likely to be more relevant and effective in addressing barriers and enablers within Capability, Opportunity and Motivation(Michie, 2014; Michie & West, 2021). We consulted these matrices to identify potential interventions to increase vaccine uptake based on our mapping of presently identified barriers and enablers to the domains of COM-B.

Ethical approval

for this study was granted by the University College London (UCL) Ethics Committee (Project ID: 13355/002).

Participants

We interviewed twenty participants from nine care homes, representing different roles, level of experience, and managerial responsibility within the care home. Participants included: heads of care (n = 3); care home managers (n = 6); care assistants (n = 3) nurse (n = 1); administrative staff (n = 2) and domestic staff (n = 5 e.g., housekeeping and kitchen staff).

The size of the nine care homes varied from 24 beds and 80 beds. The care homes mainly provided residential care, some had nursing units and most had specialist provision for dementia care.

Interviewees reported different experiences of the pandemic, but most had been severely affected by COVID-19 at least once during the pandemic. Some were mainly affected in wave 1 (March-May 2020), while others were badly affected in wave 2 (October 2020-January 2021). One care home lost a third of their residents during the pandemic and other care homes reported up to 75% of residents and 50% of staff became infected with COVID-19 in wave 2.

Interviews lasted on average 46 minutes (range: 31–66 minutes). All 20 interviewees reported having been offered the vaccination and having accepted it. Interviewees did not report any serious reservations about vaccination and there was broad support for its use in care homes. However, some initial hesitation was mentioned by some participants because of how quickly these vaccines were developed and their quick authorisation approval.

From the thematic analysis, five distinct but related over-arching themes regarding factors influencing vaccination uptake were generated. These themes and corresponding sub-themes were subsequently mapped onto the COM-B domains. The full set of themes, their mapping to COM-B, classification as a barrier/enabler/mixed influence, and supporting quotes are provided in Table 1. Each theme is discussed and summarised in turn below:

Table 1

Factors influencing the uptake of vaccination mapped to COM-B model with supporting quotes as a barrier (B) or an enabler (E), or both (Mixed)
Factors influencing the uptake of vaccination Direction of influence: B = barrier; E = enabler and M = barrier and enabler)	COM-B	Supporting quotes
Theme 1: Information-seeking strategies about vaccination
- Individuals need to source information about vaccination (E)	Psy Cap	I didn’t really [research vaccination]. I just – you know, it was like a no-brainer for me I did a little bit of research but, you know, like I say, just there's so much in the news
- Speak with colleagues, family or friends about being vaccinated (M)	Soc Opp	My husband told me I was stupid if I didn’t have it (E) [I] had a conversation with one staff member who was resistant because they are vegan (B)
- Misleading informational sources about vaccination (e.g., social media) (B)	Psy Cap	There was too much scaremongering to start with that has actually put people off
- Aware of vaccines from previous experiences of having flu vaccines (E)	Psy Cap	It's a bit like I wasn't very keen on ever getting the flu jab, but then when things were explained to me properly, it made sense and I started having my flu jab
- Information about vaccination being provided by care home employer (E)	Phy Opp	They [care home management] put a poster up. There was just a poster up. It was just a poster saying, if you want to have your vaccination, phone this number
Theme 2: Ease of access to vaccination
- Vaccine location require travelling and not always easily access by public transport (M)	Phy Opp	Originally there were issues regarding having to travel to the location for the vaccination and some staff members did not want to do this but this got resolved when local practitioner could do it (B) It was easy to get the vaccination through the care home (E)
- Roll out of vaccination before having time to consider being vaccinated (B)	Ref Mot	We were told like on the Tuesday we were going to be vaccinated on the Friday. So, some of them felt like it was a bit too quick to decide
Theme 3: Social interactions and support from managers, colleagues and care home organisations
- Recommended by care staff management to be vaccinated (E)	Soc Inf	They leave it up to – I think they obviously would like you to have it, but they’re not like putting any pressure on anyone or anything, so it is up to us if we have it
- Concerns vaccination from having pre-existing health conditions (B)	Ref Mot	Some [staff]…… were concerned because of certain health conditions that they had
- Importance of being allowed to decide for yourself by care home providers (E)	Ref Mot	Most staff members are pro vaccination Some staff members did not see the purpose of the vaccination (Barrier)
- More targeted information for staff who are vaccine hesitant (E)	Psy Cap	Some few members of staff were sceptical at the start but are getting the vaccination now. They received a lot of information together with the jab.
Theme 4: Benefits of vaccination
- Vaccination protects you, care home residents and close contact/family against Covid (E)	Ref Mot	I understand the responsibility that comes with that, to protect them [care home residents] ...expect my mum to look after my son …..so I can earn a living, then I need to protect her
- Vaccination is not required because Covid 19 is a fallacy or if not had Covid 19 up to now (B)	Ref Mot	Covid is just a made-up thing and no one will persuade her otherwise. I think, because she hasn’t had the virus herself, she thinks she’s invincible
- Vaccination is the only way back to normality, i.e., pre-covid (E)	Ref Mot	I want things to, well, not go back to normal but have a way, so we have a ’way of going back to normal’
- Importance placed on vaccination (E)	Ref Mot	Majority of staff accepted vaccination
- Vaccination allows travel abroad either on holiday or to travel back home (E)	Ref Mot	Secondly, I want to go back to [country], and I’m hoping that we’re going to have a vaccination passport, which says, there you go, I’ve had my vaccinations, please let me back to [country].
- Concerns about safety of vaccination because of limited testing (B)	Ref Mot	I do believe one of them [staff not vaccinated, saying], there’s not been enough testing on it Majority of staff accepted vaccination. Some did not want the vaccination at the start bit then changed their minds when they saw that it is safe
- Vaccine hesitancy comes concerns about possible side-effects (B)	Ref Mot	I was just worried about side effects, but yeah, I’m – I feel better now – well, I had the first dose.
Theme 5: Emotional response to vaccination
- Pre-vaccination: Worried about the negative consequences of being vaccinated (B)		I was just worried about side effects
- Post vaccination: A sense of relief and feel better from being vaccinated (E)	Aut Mot	I was, yeah, I was happy I got it and yes, and I was relieved. It made me feel more comfortable, so that if I came in contact with anybody it was a, yeah definitely a bit of a relief.

Theme 1: Information-seeking strategies about vaccination

Overall, this theme was an enabler to vaccination uptake. We asked participants what kind of information sources they have used to make their decision on vaccination. The majority of participants said that they either conducted their own research or based their decision to get vaccinated on information shown in the media (e.g., radio, TV) provided by the government and local hospital communications, or through discussions with colleagues and close friends/family. A few participants mentioned social media as an informational source, but there was awareness that this was a potential source of misleading information, which had contributed to many colleagues’ decisions to refuse vaccination. Most participants felt very well informed about vaccination for COVID-19. Some discussed whether to be vaccinated with friends and/or family members and other care home colleagues, particularly when vaccination roll-out started.

Most participants expressed positive attitudes towards vaccination and some mentioned that they were also having the seasonal flu vaccine to protect the residents. In this context, previous flu vaccination acted as a familiarisation factor (and hence an enabler) for exposure to vaccine information. As a result, these individuals reported that they did not require a lot of additional information for the COVID-19 vaccine.

It was acknowledged that the care home employers supplied a lot of information to their employees, which had facilitated their decision-making. Many participants mentioned that they valued the information and support that they received through the care home employer. Some participants mentioned that a confidential helpline was also set up by their provider through which care home staff could get information on vaccinations if requested.

Overall, participants felt very well-informed and none of them expressed concern about not having had sufficient information available.

Theme 2: ease of access to vaccination

Having to travel to another location to get vaccinated was identified as a barrier to vaccine uptake, as this made some individuals reluctant to receive the vaccine initially. However, ease of access and convenience of vaccination when vaccination was later offered in the care home was reported as an enabler.

Some staff members were also taken by surprise with how quickly they were offered the vaccine and reported that they needed more time to carefully consider and process all the available information before taking the decision to be vaccinated.

Theme 3: Social interactions and support from managers, colleagues and care home organisations

Social influences, in terms of participants’ social network and interactions, were identified as a key enabler to vaccine uptake. When participants were asked about the attitudes of their friends and family members towards vaccination, they all indicated that they had very similar attitudes to their own.

Some of the main reported reasons for why people who were initially reluctant to accept the vaccine changed their mind included seeing that others who had been vaccinated remained well over time, (i.e., they had not experienced any serious side effect) and positive and reassuring conversations with colleagues and with their employers.

All participants mentioned that their care home employers encouraged their staff to accept the vaccination, but none reported that this resulted in them feeling pressured by their employers to do so. Furthermore, all participants explicitly emphasised the importance of giving people the opportunity to make up their own minds (enabler).

Participants were asked about their interactions and discussions with colleagues who decided not to be vaccinated. They all reported encouraging colleagues to be vaccinated and to change their minds, but also emphasised that they respected their colleagues’ views and their right to choose whether to be vaccinated or not. All participants valued the fact that staff had autonomy to make their own decision. They suggested that their vaccine hesitant colleagues should receive more information and that it was important to listen to and address their concerns. They felt that pointing out that vaccination was a ‘way back to normality’ was likely to have a positive influence on staff’s decision to be vaccinated (enabler).

Theme 4: Beliefs about benefits of vaccination

Participants clearly stated their perceived benefits of vaccination, which motivated them to get the vaccine (Enabler). Reasons provided for accepting the vaccination included staff own protection, protection of residents and close contacts/family members, leading by example and doing what is for the “greater” good, allowing more freedom in the future and believing that it was the ‘only way back to normality.’ Some participants mentioned that being vaccinated would allow them to travel abroad, which was particularly important to those staff members who were originally from a different country.

All participants stated they were not doing anything different following vaccination. The same protective measures were still in place post vaccination (e.g., PPE and social distancing) and continued to be followed. They also stated that they would also adhere to the same personal protective measures in their lives outside of the work environment.

In contrast, when asked about their unvaccinated colleagues’ attitudes and beliefs, participants believed that concerns about potential side-effects was the main reason for their colleagues’ hesitancy (i.e., barrier to vaccine uptake). In particular, those with pre-existing health conditions were especially concerned and apprehensive that vaccines might not have been tested appropriately and that the evidence base was still very limited.

Some participants perceived that vaccine hesitancy could be more prevalent among different ethnic and religious communities who have limited trust in public health authorities.

Theme 5: Emotional response to vaccination

Emotions represented a mixed influence on vaccine uptake. Many participants mentioned that they felt happy about getting the vaccination. One participant even reported having cried out of relief. For some others, it was less emotional, and they just felt they had to do what they had to do. One participant mentioned feeling “better about themselves” after the vaccination. Some participants reported not having any particular emotional reaction to the vaccination.

Mapping of identified barriers and enablers to proposed interventions

Table 2 presents the use of the Behaviour Change Wheel and Behaviour Change Technique taxonomy to select appropriate interventions based on the key components of the COM-B components as a basis for future policy recommendations.

Table 2

COM-B influences mapped to proposed interventions using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW)
Factors influencing the uptake of vaccination	COM-B	Intervention type	Behaviour Change Technique	Examples of how these could be designed and delivered
Individuals need to source information about vaccination	Psy Cap	Education Enablement Persuasion	- Information about social and environmental consequences - Information on health consequences - Salience of consequences - Action planning - Credible source	Provide details of where to locate scientifically robust evidence about vaccination that is in a comprehensible and reader-friendly format e.g., Provide testimonials from other care home staff
Misleading informational sources about vaccination (e.g., social media)
Aware of vaccines from previous experiences of having flu vaccines
More targeted information for staff who are vaccine hesitant
Information about vaccination being provided by care home employer	Phy Opp	Education Enablement Environmental restructuring	- Prompts/Cues - Restructuring the physical environment - Environmental restructuring	Posters displayed within care homes that contain messaging on the safety and benefits from being vaccinated, i.e., the way back to normality Organise future vaccination booster to be done in situ
Vaccine location require travelling and not always easily access by public transport	Phy Opp	Education Enablement Environmental restructuring
Speak with colleagues, family or friends about being vaccinated	Soc Opp	Persuasion Modelling Enablement	- Credible source - Social support (Practical) - Social comparisons - Problem solving	Having a senior staff member to act as a ‘champion’ of vaccines by taking on a leadership role. Champions address identified apprehension about vaccination with staff who are vaccine hesitant Consider providing resources or suggested solutions for champions to ‘problem solve’ locally
Recommended by care staff management to be vaccinated	Soc Opp	Persuasion Modelling Enablement
Concerns vaccination from having pre-existing health conditions	Ref Mot	Education Persuasion Modelling Enablement	- Pros and cons - Credible source - Framing /reframing - Information about health consequences	Facilitating communication between staff with similar roles and from different ethnic and religious communities from within the care home to exchange views, concerns and experience of being vaccinated Targeted campaigns and communications
Importance of being allowed to decide for yourself by care home providers
Roll out of vaccination before having time to consider being vaccinated
Vaccination protects you, care home residents and close contact/family against Covid
Vaccination is not required because Covid 19 is a fallacy or if not had Covid 19 up to now
Vaccination is the only way back to normality, i.e., pre-covid
Importance placed on vaccination
Vaccination allows travel abroad either on holiday or to travel back home
Concerns about safety of vaccination because of limited testing
Vaccine hesitancy comes concerns about possible side-effects
Pre-vaccination: Worried about the negative consequences of being vaccinated	Aut Mot	Education Persuasion	- Social support (Emotional) - Salience of consequences - Information about consequences
Post vaccination: A sense of relief and feel better from being vaccinated	Aut Mot	Education Persuasion

We propose four intervention types (i.e., education, enablement, persuasion and modelling) and nine BCTs (e.g. action planning, social support, credible source) to target individual knowledge, motivation and emotional influences on vaccine uptake. Some interventions focus on increasing the individual knowledge about vaccination and the motivation of CH staff to get vaccinated. Other interventions focus on reducing any emotional concerns from being vaccinated. Therefore, an educational-based intervention aims to increase knowledge and to address the perceived lack of credible, reliable sources of evidence about vaccination. This educational intervention can be tailored to the care home setting, for example, provide details of where to locate scientifically robust evidence about vaccination that is in a comprehensible and reader-friendly format.

Other interventions focus on increasing ease of access to vaccination centres (enablement) and improving communication and promotion of vaccination by appointing a person in a leadership role to ‘champion’ being vaccinated (persuasion and modelling). This role is to encourage staff to be vaccinated and to reduce any concerns about side-effects (e.g., not being able to work), vaccine safety and risks from having pre-existing health conditions.

We explored UK care home staff attitudes and behaviours towards the COVID-19 vaccine before the COVID-19 vaccine became mandatory in this work environment. Overall, our findings are well-aligned with findings from previous studies on vaccination uptake. Key factors enabling vaccination uptake included willingness to protect themselves and vulnerable others (Dennis et al., 2022; Giebel et al., 2021), having an encouraging workplace and social network (Dennis et al., 2022; Ní Shé et al., 2020) and the expectation of return to normality (Craig et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2022). Concerns about the speed of vaccine development and approval, lack of research for potential long-term effects, and concerns about side effects and allergic reactions for specific health conditions were barriers linked to vaccine hesitancy (Cook et al., 2022; Dennis et al., 2022; McConaghy et al., 2022; Tulloch et al., 2021; Unroe et al., 2021).

Our study demonstrates the benefits of mapping the identified factors influencing the decision-making processes leading to vaccination acceptance or refusal in order to propose theoretically-informed strategies that could potentially increase vaccine uptake in care homes. Specifically, our findings highlight the importance of capability, opportunity and motivational influences on vaccine uptake. For psychological capability, there were no issues with understanding the pros and cons of vaccination to make an informed decision from the available information. However, some knowledge of vaccines can be from less scientifically robust sources such as social media suggesting educating staff on where to find trustworthy information is important (Giebel et al., 2021; Murphy et al., 2021). Also, a focus on educating about pre-existing health conditions or concerns regarding fertility may improve the psychological capability of informing what is perceived as a ‘a risky decision’ such as vaccination (Tulloch et al., 2021).

For physical opportunity, there were no real obstacles with getting the vaccine because after an initial period, all vaccinations were taking place in the care homes. Nonetheless, this highlights the importance of ensuring that vaccination is convenient and accessible in order to maximise uptake, and future vaccination interventions need to be mindful of this. For social opportunity, seeking advice and information from family and friends and work colleagues was commonplace, and had resulted in some colleagues who were initially reluctant to accept the vaccine to change their minds. This suggests that social opportunity is an enabler that should be harnessed in future interventions, with more emphasis on enabling conversations between colleagues and their managers within the CH context to understand concerns and fears of the consequences of those who are vaccine hesitant and how best to address these apprehensions (Dennis et al., 2022; Giebel et al., 2021). Especially if a positive vaccine attitude is endorsed or modelled by a senior member of staff or someone who has a leadership role within the CH or from the wider healthcare community to promote the benefits of vaccination, this can have a significant impact (Biswas et al., 2021; Roy et al., 2022; Toth-Manikowski et al., 2022) .

Motivation was the most complex aspect of vaccine uptake. In terms of reflective motivation, most participants prioritised being vaccinated to protect themselves and others from COVID-19 because it was the “right thing for the greater good” and knowing that everybody getting vaccinated is the way back to ‘normality’. Therefore, when targeting the beliefs of those who are vaccine hesitant, it may be valuable for persuading that vaccines are safe and effective and the optimal way forward for managing COVID-19 long-term (Roy et al., 2022). As part of the education-based strategies, also target automatic motivation through enabling those who are vaccine hesitant to communicate their anxieties and have conversations about how best to reduce and overcome these concerns (Dennis et al., 2022; Tulloch et al., 2021).

Importantly, our findings highlight the role of non-judgmental, positive peer-to-peer interactions in decision making, and the need for public health authorities to address fears and safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccine as a recently developed vaccine (Craig et al., 2021; Dennis et al., 2022).

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of this study include providing evidence to address a research gap for an under researched population and context, including a representative sample (by interviewing staff across different care homes in diverse roles) and using a theoretical framework for analysis of the data. However, an important limitation of this study is that we only interviewed individuals who had been vaccinated, which limits our ability to draw inferences about barriers to vaccination beyond perceptions of those who had been vaccinated regarding the underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy of those colleagues who had refused the vaccination.

Policy Implications and recommendations

The behavioural analysis of the findings has guided the identification of theoretically-informed proposed interventions detailing the relevant BCTs for implementation (see Table 2). In the context of recurrent discussions regarding mandatory vaccination for health and social care employees when health crises arise (Graeber et al., 2021; Hayes & Pollock, 2021; Marckmann et al., 2013; McCartney, 2018; Parker et al., 2021; Wise, 2021a, 2021b), we propose theory-informed implementation strategies, which would foster vaccine confidence and encourage people to get vaccinated willingly (Ahmed, 2021; Dennis et al., 2022). Mandatory vaccination for care home staff was introduced in England on 14th June 2021, and although this increased vaccine coverage, it also led a substantial minority of staff to leave the sector which exacerbated pre-existing staff shortages (Dennis et al., 2022; Hayes & Pollock, 2021; Swift & Bunn, 2022). This policy does not align with our findings as people emphasised how much they valued autonomy in their decision-making process. The policy decision to mandate vaccination against COVID-19 in care home staff has now been reversed (15th March 2022; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vaccination-of-people-working-or-deployed-in-care-homes-operational-guidance) but given the importance of regular (booster) vaccination to maintain protection against COVID-19, there is an ongoing need for evidence-informed strategies to increase vaccine uptake. In this context, our policy recommendations for the current, and for future, vaccination uptake and pandemic preparedness would be:

Providing staff with relevant material from a credible, evidence-based source that outlines the facts around benefits and risk of getting (or not getting) the vaccination in order to allow an informed decision
Providing easy access to vaccination (ideally on site, with no need to commute to an external location)
Senior care home staff/ management should engage with staff about vaccination - fears of those hesitant to get vaccinated have to be taken seriously and addressed. Modelling the behaviour is also an impactful way to change negative attitudes and beliefs and lead by example.
Facilitating communication between staff on peer level in order to exchange views, concerns and experiences regarding vaccination.
Staff from the BAME community in particular could address concerns from their peers who are sceptical of the vaccination and “lead by example”.

Overall, our research participants were positive about getting vaccinated although they reported that some colleagues were hesitant to accept the vaccination. We identified as enablers to vaccine uptake receiving adequate information material, the opportunity to get vaccination relatively hassle-free (i.e. in the care home directly), having positive conversations with care home managers and other staff about any fears as well as the awareness that being vaccinated protects people around them and that it is a way back to normalcy. The main barriers to getting vaccinated were fears of potential side effects and mistrust with regard to the development of the vaccination - especially when these were magnified by respective misinformation in social media. Based on these findings, we suggest that health and social care providers and policy makers should consider our suggested intervention strategies and care home managers, employers, and policy makers should facilitate open, non-judgmental discussions with care home workers who are vaccine hesitant to provide the opportunity to these members of staff to discuss their reasons for not getting the vaccine, while also respectfully encouraging vaccination uptake.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the care home providers, participants and the managers who contributed to this study.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Ethics committee of the University College London (UCL) approved this study. The committee’s approval reference number is 13355/002. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Data availability statement

Data generated during the study are subject to a data sharing mandate and available in a public repository that does not issue datasets with DOIs. The fully anonymized transcripts are available here:

COVID-19: Burden and Impact in Care Homes: A Mixed Methods Study, 2020-2021 - ReShare (ukdataservice.ac.uk)

Competing interests

No real or potential conflicts of interest are associated with the publication of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/V003887/1). The study is also supported by funding from the UK Department of Health & Social Care (COVID-19 Surveillance Studies). LS is funded by a NIHR Clinician Scientist Award [CS-2016-16-007].

Author Contributions

Bettina Friedrich: Project Administration, Investigation, Data Analysis, Writing – original draft, review & editing. Vivi Antonopoulou: Investigation, Data Analysis, Writing – review and final editing. Gillian Forbes: Investigation, Data Analysis, Writing – review & editing. Arnoupe Jhass: Investigation, Data Analysis, Writing & review. Laura Shallcross: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing, Review & Validation. Fabiana Lorencatto: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Review & Editing. All authors reviewed the manuscript, approved the final content and met authorship criteria.

Ahmed, N. (2021). Commentary: Mandatory covid vaccination blames individual care home workers for government failures. BMJ, 374, n1902. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1902
Atkins, L., Francis, J., Islam, R., O’Connor, D., Patey, A., Ivers, N., Foy, R., Duncan, E. M., Colquhoun, H., Grimshaw, J. M., Lawton, R., & Michie, S. (2017, 2017/06/21). A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implementation Science, 12(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9
Biswas, N., Mustapha, T., Khubchandani, J., & Price, J. H. (2021, 2021/12/01). The Nature and Extent of COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers. Journal of Community Health, 46(6), 1244-1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-021-00984-3
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, K. A., Stall, N. M., Vanniyasingam, T., Buchan, S. A., Daneman, N., Hillmer, M. P., Hopkins, J., Johnstone, J., Maltsev, A., McGeer, A., Sander, B., Savage, R. D., Watts, T., Juni, P., & Rochon, P. A. (2021). Early impact of Ontario’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout on long-term care home residents and health care workers. Science Briefs of the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table. 2021;2(13). https://doi.org/10.47326/ocsat.2021.02.13.1.0. https://doi.org/10.47326/ocsat.2021.02.13.1.0
Burton, J. K., Bayne, G., Evans, C., Garbe, F., Gorman, D., Honhold, N., McCormick, D., Othieno, R., Stevenson, J. E., Swietlik, S., Templeton, K. E., Tranter, M., Willocks, L., & Guthrie, B. (2020, Oct). Evolution and effects of COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes: a population analysis in 189 care homes in one geographical region of the UK. Lancet Healthy Longev, 1(1), e21-e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(20)30012-X
Burton, J. K., Reid, M., Gribben, C., Caldwell, D., Clark, D. N., Hanlon, P., Quinn, T. J., Fischbacher, C., Knight, P., & Guthrie, B. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on care-home mortality and life expectancy in Scotland. Age and Ageing, 50(4), 1029-1037.
Cabezas C, C. E., Mora-Fernandez N, Li X, Martinez-Marcos M, Fina-Aviles F, et al. (2021). Effects of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination on COVID-19 disease, hospitalisation and mortality in nursing homes and healthcare workers: a prospective cohort study including 28,594 nursing home residents, 26,238 nursing home staff, and 61,951 healthcare workers in Catalonia. The Lancet (pre-print)
Cook, E. J., Elliott, E., Gaitan, A., Nduka, I., Cartwright, S., Egbutah, C., Randhawa, G., Waqar, M., & Ali, N. (2022). Vaccination against COVID-19: Factors That Influence Vaccine Hesitancy among an Ethnically Diverse Community in the UK. Vaccines, 10(1).
Craig, L., Haloub, R., Reid, H., Masson, D., Mccalmont, H., Fodey, K., Conway, B. R., Lattyak, W. J., Lattyak, E. A., Bain, A., Al-Azzam, S., & Aldeyab, M. A. (2021). Exploration of the Experience of Care Home Managers of COVID-19 Vaccination Programme Implementation and Uptake by Residents and Staff in Care Homes in Northern Ireland. Vaccines, 9(10), 1160. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/10/1160
Daras, K., Alexiou, A., Rose, T. C., Buchan, I., Taylor-Robinson, D., & Barr, B. (2021). How does vulnerability to COVID-19 vary between communities in England? Developing a small area vulnerability index (SAVI). J Epidemiol Community Health, 75(8), 729-734.
Davidoff, F., Dixon-Woods, M., Leviton, L., & Michie, S. (2015). Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(3), 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627
Dennis, A., Robin, C., Jones, L. F., & Carter, H. (2022). Exploring vaccine hesitancy in care home employees in North West England: a qualitative study. BMJ Open, 12(5), e055239. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055239
Giebel, C., Hanna, K., Cannon, J., Marlow, P., Tetlow, H., Mason, S., Shenton, J., Rajagopal, M., & Gabbay, M. (2021). Are we allowed to visit now? Concerns and issues surrounding vaccination and infection risks in UK care homes during COVID-19. Age and Ageing, 51(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afab229
Graeber, D., Schmidt-Petri, C., & Schröder, C. (2021). Attitudes on voluntary and mandatory vaccination against COVID-19: Evidence from Germany. PloS one, 16(5), e0248372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248372
Hayes, L., & Pollock, A. M. (2021). Mandatory covid-19 vaccination for care home workers. BMJ, 374, n1684. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1684
JCVI, Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (December 2020). Priority groups for coronavirus (Covid-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI.
Krutikov, M., Palmer, T., Donaldson, A., Lorencatto, F., Forbes, G., Copas, A., Robson, J., Hopkins, S., Moss, P., Farrar, J., Hayward, A., & Shallcross, L. (2021). Study Protocol: Understanding SARS-Cov-2 infection, immunity and its duration in care home residents and staff in England (VIVALDI). Wellcome open research, 5, 232-232. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16193.2
Ladhani, S. N., Chow, J. Y., Janarthanan, R., Fok, J., Crawley-Boevey, E., Vusirikala, A., Fernandez, E., Perez, M. S., Tang, S., Dun-Campbell, K., Wynne-Evans, E., Bell, A., Patel, B., Amin-Chowdhury, Z., Aiano, F., Paranthaman, K., Ma, T., Saavedra-Campos, M., Myers, R., Ellis, J., Lackenby, A., Gopal, R., Patel, M., Chand, M., Brown, K., Hopkins, S., Consortium, C., Shetty, N., Zambon, M., Ramsay, M. E., & London Care Home Investigation, T. (2020). Increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in staff working across different care homes: enhanced CoVID-19 outbreak investigations in London care Homes. The Journal of infection, 81(4), 621-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.07.027
Marckmann, G., van Delden, J. J. M., Sanktjohanser, A. M., & Wicker, S. (2013). Influenza Vaccination for Health Care Personnel in Long-Term Care Homes: What Restrictions of Individual Freedom of Choice Are Morally Justifiable? In D. Strech, I. Hirschberg, & G. Marckmann (Eds.), Ethics in Public Health and Health Policy: Concepts, Methods, Case Studies (pp. 209-223). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6374-6_14
McCartney, M. (2018). Margaret McCartney: Mandatory flu vaccination won’t fix the NHS. BMJ, 360, k402.
McConaghy, M., Sartaj, M., Conway, B. R., & Aldeyab, M. A. (2022). An assessment of the impact of the vaccination program on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks in care homes in Northern Ireland-A pilot study. Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 43(8), 1094-1096. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2021.169
McMichael, T. M., Currie, D. W., Clark, S., Pogosjans, S., Kay, M., Schwartz, N. G., Lewis, J., Baer, A., Kawakami, V., Lukoff, M. D., Ferro, J., Brostrom-Smith, C., Rea, T. D., Sayre, M. R., Riedo, F. X., Russell, D., Hiatt, B., Montgomery, P., Rao, A. K., Chow, E. J., Tobolowsky, F., Hughes, M. J., Bardossy, A. C., Oakley, L. P., Jacobs, J. R., Stone, N. D., Reddy, S. C., Jernigan, J. A., Honein, M. A., Clark, T. A., & Duchin, J. S. (2020, May 21). Epidemiology of Covid-19 in a Long-Term Care Facility in King County, Washington. N Engl J Med, 382(21), 2005-2011. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2005412
Michie, S. (2014). Implementation science: understanding behaviour change and maintenance. BMC Health Services Research, 14(Suppl 2), O9-O9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-S2-O9
Michie, S. (2022, 2022/09/01). Encouraging vaccine uptake: lessons from behavioural science. Nature Reviews Immunology, 22(9), 527-528. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-022-00769-2
Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M. P., Cane, J., & Wood, C. E. (2013, Aug). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med, 46(1), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011a, 2011/04/23). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011b). The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation science : IS, 6, 42-42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Michie, S., & West, R. (2021, 2021/05/01). Sustained behavior change is key to preventing and tackling future pandemics. Nature Medicine, 27(5), 749-752. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01345-2
Micocci, M., Gordon, A. L., Allen, A. J., Hicks, T., Kierkegaard, P., McLister, A., Walne, S., Hayward, G., & Buckle, P. (2021, May 5). COVID-19 testing in English care homes and implications for staff and residents. Age Ageing, 50(3), 668-672. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afab015
Morciano, M., Stokes, J., Kontopantelis, E., Hall, I., & Turner, A. (2020). Excess mortality for care home residents during the first 23 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in England: a national cohort study. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229815
Murphy, J., Vallières, F., Bentall, R. P., Shevlin, M., McBride, O., Hartman, T. K., McKay, R., Bennett, K., Mason, L., Gibson-Miller, J., Levita, L., Martinez, A. P., Stocks, T. V. A., Karatzias, T., & Hyland, P. (2021, 2021/01/04). Psychological characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Nature Communications, 12(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20226-9
NHS. (October 2021). Visiting healthcare inpatient settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: principles. NHS; 2021. . Contract No.: 1 October 2021.
Ní Shé, É., O'Donnell, D., O'Shea, M., & Stokes, D. (2020). New Ways of Working? A Rapid Exploration of Emerging Evidence Regarding the Care of Older People during COVID19. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(18), 6442. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186442
ONS. (2020). Office for National Statistics. Comparison of weekly death occurrences in England and Wales articles London. London: Office for National Statistics (ONS); 2020.
Parker, M., Bedford, H., Ussher, M., & Stead, M. (2021). Should covid vaccination be mandatory for health and care staff? BMJ, 374, n1903. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1903
Rajan, D., Koch, K., Rohrer, K., Bajnoczki, C., Socha, A., Voss, M., Nicod, M., Ridde, V., & Koonin, J. (2020, May). Governance of the Covid-19 response: a call for more inclusive and transparent decision-making. BMJ Glob Health, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002655
Roy, D. N., Biswas, M., Islam, E., & Azam, M. S. (2022). Potential factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy: A systematic review. PloS one, 17(3), e0265496-e0265496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265496
Schultze, A., Nightingale, E., Evans, D., Hulme, W., Rosello, A., Bates, C., Cockburn, J., MacKenna, B., Curtis, H. J., Morton, C. E., Croker, R., Bacon, S., McDonald, H. I., Rentsch, C. T., Bhaskaran, K., Mathur, R., Tomlinson, L. A., Williamson, E. J., Forbes, H., Tazare, J., Grint, D., Walker, A. J., Inglesby, P., DeVito, N. J., Mehrkar, A., Hickman, G., Davy, S., Ward, T., Fisher, L., Green, A. C., Wing, K., Wong, A. Y., McManus, R., Parry, J., Hester, F., Harper, S., Evans, S. J., Douglas, I. J., Smeeth, L., Eggo, R. M., Goldacre, B., & Leon, D. A. (2022). Mortality among Care Home Residents in England during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study of 4.3 million adults over the age of 65. The Lancet regional health. Europe, 14, 100295-100295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100295
Shrotri, M., Krutikov, M., Palmer, T., Giddings, R., Azmi, B., Subbarao, S., Fuller, C., Irwin-Singer, A., Davies, D., Tut, G., Bernal, J. L., Moss, P., Hayward, A., Copas, A., & Shallcross, L. (2021). Vaccine effectiveness of the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents of Long-Term Care Facilities (VIVALDI study). medRxiv, 2021.2003.2026.21254391. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.26.21254391
Skivington, K., Matthews, L., Simpson, S. A., Craig, P., Baird, J., Blazeby, J. M., Boyd, K. A., Craig, N., French, D. P., McIntosh, E., Petticrew, M., Rycroft-Malone, J., White, M., & Moore, L. (2021). A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 374, n2061. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2061
Swift, P., & Bunn, L. (2022). An analysis of Public Health England’s vaccination data for care home workers immediately preceding a ‘Roadmap out of COVID-19 Lockdown’. BJGP Open, 6(1), BJGPO.2021.0152. https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0152
Taylor, B., Henshall, C., Kenyon, S., Litchfield, I., & Greenfield, S. (2018). Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis. BMJ Open, 8(10), e019993. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019993
Toth-Manikowski, S. M., Swirsky, E. S., Gandhi, R., & Piscitello, G. (2022, 2022/01/01/). COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among health care workers, communication, and policy-making. American Journal of Infection Control, 50(1), 20-25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.10.004
Tulloch, J. S. P., Lawrenson, K., Gordon, A. L., Ghebrehewet, S., Ashton, M., Peddie, S., & Parvulescu, P. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in care home staff: a survey of Liverpool care homes. medRxiv, 2021.2003.2007.21252972. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.07.21252972
Unroe, K. T., Evans, R., Weaver, L., Rusyniak, D., & Blackburn, J. (2021, Mar). Willingness of Long-Term Care Staff to Receive a COVID-19 Vaccine: A Single State Survey. J Am Geriatr Soc, 69(3), 593-599. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17022
Wang, Q., Yang, L., Jin, H., & Lin, L. (2021). Vaccination against COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of acceptability and its predictors. Preventive medicine, 150, 106694-106694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106694
Williams, L., Gallant, A. J., Rasmussen, S., Brown Nicholls, L. A., Cogan, N., Deakin, K., Young, D., & Flowers, P. (2020). Towards intervention development to increase the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among those at high risk: Outlining evidence-based and theoretically informed future intervention content. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(4), 1039-1054. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12468
Williams, O., Williams, C., Turner, D., Bull, M., Watkins, J., & Hurt, L. (2022, Aug 25). An epidemiological investigation of COVID-19 outbreaks in a group of care homes in Wales, UK: a retrospective cohort study. J Public Health (Oxf), 44(3), 606-613. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdab150
Wise, J. (2021a). Covid-19: France and Greece make vaccination mandatory for healthcare workers. BMJ, 374, n1797. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1797
Wise, J. (2021b). Covid-19: Is the UK heading towards mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers? BMJ, 373, n1056. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1056
Wong, C. H., Zhong, C. C., Chung, V. C., Nilsen, P., Wong, E. L., & Yeoh, E.-k. (2022). Barriers and Facilitators to Receiving the COVID-19 Vaccination and Development of Theoretically-Informed Implementation Strategies for the Public: Qualitative Study in Hong Kong. Vaccines, 10(5).
Yeo, J., Furr Gudmundsen, C., Fazel, S., Corrigan, A., Fullerton, M. M., Hu, J., Jadavji, T., Kuhn, S., Kassam, A., & Constantinescu, C. (2022). A behavior change model to address caregiver hesitancy around COVID-19 vaccination in pediatrics. Vaccine, 40(39), 5664-5669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.002

No competing interests reported.

SupplementaryFileCareHomesBMCHealthServicesResearch.docx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 06 Oct, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Health Services Research →

Editorial decision: Major revision
27 Jul, 2023
Reviews received at journal
25 Jul, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
05 Jul, 2023
Reviews received at journal
04 Jul, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
26 Jun, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
23 Jun, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
23 Jun, 2023
Editor invited by journal
19 May, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
19 May, 2023
First submitted to journal
17 May, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Factors influencing staff attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination in care homes in England: A qualitative study

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background.

Methods.

Results. Enablers to vaccine uptake

Conclusions

Background

Methods

Study design

Participants and recruitment

Procedure

Interview guide

Data analysis

Results

Participants

Theme 1: Information-seeking strategies about vaccination

Theme 2: ease of access to vaccination

Theme 3: Social interactions and support from managers, colleagues and care home organisations

Theme 4: Beliefs about benefits of vaccination

Theme 5: Emotional response to vaccination

Mapping of identified barriers and enablers to proposed interventions

Discussion

Strengths and Limitations

Policy Implications and recommendations

Conclusion

Declarations

Acknowledgements

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1