Identifying and understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy within distinct populations may aid future public health messaging. Using nationally representative data from the general adult populations of Ireland (N = 1041) and the United Kingdom (UK; N = 2025), we found that vaccine hesitancy/resistance was evident for 35% and 31% of these populations respectively. Vaccine hesitant/resistant respondents in Ireland and the UK differed on a number of sociodemographic and health-related variables but were similar across a broad array of psychological constructs. In both populations, those resistant to a COVID-19 vaccine were less likely to obtain information about the pandemic from traditional and authoritative sources and had similar levels of mistrust in these sources compared to vaccine accepting respondents. Given the geographical proximity and socio-economic similarity of the populations studied, it is not possible to generalize findings to other populations, however, the methodology employed here may be useful to those wishing to understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy elsewhere.

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic in Ireland resulted in a nationwide quarantine on March 27, 2020. This study represents the first assessment of rates of anxiety and depression in the general population of Ireland during the pandemic.Aims: Our first aim was to estimate the probable prevalence rates of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and depression and to identify sociodemographic risk factors associated with screening positive for GAD or depression. Our second aim was to determine if COVID‐19 related anxiety was highest amongst those in society at greatest risk of morality from COVID‐19.Method: Self‐report data were collected from a nationally representative Irish sample (N = 1041) online between March 31 and April 5; the first week of the nationwide quarantine measures. Recognized cut‐off scores on the GAD‐7 and PHQ‐9 were used to estimate rates of GAD and depression. Correlates of screening positive for GAD or depression were assessed using logistic regression analysis.Results: GAD (20.0%), depression (22.8%) and GAD or depression (27.7%) was common. Screening positive for GAD or depression was associated with younger age, female sex, loss of income due to COVID‐19, COVID‐19 infection and higher perceived risk of COVID‐19 infection. Citizens aged 65 and older had significantly higher levels of COVID‐19 related anxiety than adults aged 18–34.Conclusions: Initial results from this multi‐wave study monitoring changes in population anxiety and depression throughout the pandemic indicate that GAD and depression were common experiences in the population during the initial phase of the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Realist evaluations are increasingly used in the study of complex health interventions. The methodological procedures applied within realist evaluations however are often inexplicit, prompting scholars to call for increased transparency and more detailed description within realist studies. This publication details the data analysis and synthesis process used within two realist evaluation studies of community health interventions taking place across Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya. Using data from several case studies across all three countries and the data analysis software NVivo, we describe in detail how data were analyzed and subsequently synthesized to refine middle-range theories. We conclude by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the approach taken, providing novel methodological recommendations. The aim of providing this detailed descriptive account of the analysis and synthesis in these two studies is to promote transparency and contribute to the advancement of realist evaluation methodologies.

Background: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been identified as an important public health problem with serious implications. Less well understood is how distinct configurations of childhood adversities carry differential risks for mental health, emotional, and social outcomes later in life. Objective: To determine if distinct profiles of childhood adversities exist for males and females and to examine if unique associations exist between the resultant latent profiles of childhood adversities and multiple indicators of mental health and social and emotional wellbeing in adulthood. Method: Participants (N = 1,839) were a nationally representative household sample of adults currently residing in the USA and the data were collected via online self-report questionnaires. Latent class analysis was used to identify the optimal number of classes to explain ACE co-occurrence among males and females, separately. ANOVAs, chi-square tests, and t-tests were used to compare male and female classes across multiple mental health, emotional, and social wellbeing variables in adulthood. Results: Females were significantly more likely than males to report a range of ACEs and mental health, social, and emotional difficulties in adulthood. Two- and four-class models were identified as the best fit for males and females, respectively, indicating more complexity and variation in ACE exposures among females. For males and female, ACEs were strongly associated with poorer mental health, emotional, and social outcomes in adulthood. Among females, growing up in a dysfunctional home environment was a significant risk factor for adverse social outcomes in adulthood. Conclusions: Males and females have distinct patterns of childhood adversities, with females experiencing more complex and varied patterns of childhood adversity. These patterns of ACEs were associated with numerous negative mental, emotional, and social outcomes among both sexes.