Background: COVID‐19 vaccines can offer a route out of the pandemic, yet initial research suggests that many are unwilling to be vaccinated. A rise in the spread of misinformation is thought to have played a significant role in vaccine hesitancy. To maximize uptake, it is important to understand why misinformation has been able to take hold at this time and why it may pose a more significant problem within certain contexts.Objective: To understand people's COVID‐19 beliefs, their interactions with (mis)information during COVID‐19 and attitudes towards a COVID‐19 vaccine.Design and Participants: Bradford, UK, was chosen as the study site to provide evidence to local decision makers. In‐depth phone interviews were carried out with 20 people from different ethnic groups and areas of Bradford during Autumn 2020. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.Results: Participants discussed a wide range of COVID‐19 misinformation they had encountered, resulting in confusion, distress and mistrust. Vaccine hesitancy could be attributed to three prominent factors: safety concerns, negative stories and personal knowledge. The more confused, distressed and mistrusting participants felt about their social worlds during the pandemic, the less positive they were about a vaccine.Conclusions: COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy needs to be understood in the context of the relationship between the spread of misinformation and associated emotional reactions. Vaccine programmes should provide a focused, localized and empathetic response to counter misinformation.Patient or Public Contribution: A rapid community and stakeholder engagement process was undertaken to identify COVID‐19 priority topics important to Bradford citizens and decision makers.

The UK COVID-19 lockdown has included restricting social movement and interaction to slow the spread of disease and reduce demand on NHS acute services. It is likely that the impacts of restrictions will hit the least advantaged disproportionately and will worsen existing structural inequalities amongst deprived and ethnic minority groups. The aim of this study is to deliver rapid intelligence to enable an effective COVID-19 response, including co-production of interventions, that address key issues in the City of Bradford, UK, and nationally. In the longer term we aim to understand the impacts of the response on health trajectories and inequalities in these. In this paper we describe our approach and protocol. We plan an adaptive longitudinal mixed methods approach embedded with Born in Bradford (BiB) birth cohorts which have rich existing data (including questionnaire, routine health and biobank). All work packages (WP) interact and are ongoing. WP1 uses co-production and engagement methods with communities, decision-makers and researchers to continuously set (changing) research priorities and will, longer-term, co-produce interventions to aid the City’s recovery. In WP2 repeated quantitative surveys will be administered during lockdown (April-June 2020), with three repeat surveys until 12 months post-lockdown with an ethnically diverse pool of BiB participants (parents, children aged 9-13 years, pregnant women: total sample pool N=7,652, N=5,154, N=1,800). A range of health, social, economic and education outcomes will be assessed. In WP3 priority topics identified in WP1 and WP2 will be explored qualitatively. Initial priority topics include children’s mental wellbeing, health beliefs and the peri/post-natal period. Feedback loops will ensure findings are fed directly to decision-makers and communities (via WP1) to enable co-production of acceptable interventions and identify future priority topic areas. Findings will be used to aid development of local and national policy to support recovery from the pandemic and minimise health inequalities.

Background : Lockdown measures implemented to contain the Covid-19 virus have increased health inequalities, with families from deprived and ethnically diverse backgrounds most likely to be adversely affected. This paper describes the experiences of families living in the multi-ethnic and deprived city of Bradford, England. Methods : A wave of survey data collection using a combination of email, text and phone with postal follow-up during the first Covid-19 UK lockdown (10th April to 30 th June 2020) with parents participating in two longitudinal studies. Cross tabulations explored variation by ethnicity and financial insecurity. Text from open questions was analysed using thematic analysis. Results : Of 7,652 families invited, 2,144 (28%) participated. The results presented are based on the 2,043 (95%) mothers’ responses: 957 (47%) of whom were of Pakistani heritage, 715 (35%) White British and 356 (18%) other ethnicity 971 (46%) lived in the most deprived decile of material deprivation in England. and 738 (37%) were financially insecure. Many families lived in poor quality (N=574, 28%), overcrowded (N=364, 19%) housing. Food (N=396, 20%), employment (N=728, 37%) and housing (N=204, 10%) insecurities were common, particularly in those who were furloughed, self-employed not working or unemployed. Clinically important depression and anxiety were reported by 372 (19%) and 318 (16%) mothers. Ethnic minority and financially insecure families had a worse experience during the lockdown across all domains, with the exception of mental health which appeared worse in White British mothers. Open text responses corroborated these findings and highlighted high levels of anxiety and fear about Covid-19. Conclusions : There is a need for policy makers and commissioners to better support vulnerable families during and after the pandemic. Future work will use longitudinal data from before the pandemic, and from future surveys during the pandemic, to describe trajectories and the long-term consequences of the pandemic on vulnerable populations.

Objective Food insecurity is linked to poor health and well-being in children and rising prevalence rates have been exacerbated by COVID-19. Free school meals (FSM) are considered a critical tool for reducing the adverse effects of poverty but apply a highly restrictive eligibility criteria. This study examined levels of food security and FSM status to support decision-making regarding increasing the current eligibility criteria. Design Two cross-sectional national surveys administered in August–September 2020 and January–February 2021 were used to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the food experiences of children and young people. Setting UK. Participants 2166 children (aged 7–17 years) and parents/guardians. Main outcome measures Participant characteristics were described by food security and FSM status; estimated marginal means were calculated to obtain the probability of poor mental health, expressed as children reporting feeling stressed or worried in the past month, by food security status and FSM status. Results We observed food insecurity among both children who did and did not receive of FSM: 23% of children not receiving FSM were food insecure. Children who were food insecure had a higher probability of poor mental health (31%, 95% CI: 23%, 40%) than children who were food secure (10%, 95% CI: 7%, 14%). Food insecure children receiving FSM had a higher probability of poor mental health (51%, 95% CI: 37%, 65%) than those who were food insecure and not receiving FSM (29%, 95% CI: 19%, 42%). Conclusion Many children experienced food insecurity regardless of whether they received FSM, suggesting the eligibility criteria needs to be widened to prevent overlooking those in need.

Background : Lockdown measures implemented to contain the Covid-19 virus may be increasing health inequalities, with families from deprived and ethnically diverse backgrounds most likely to be adversely affected. This paper presents findings of the experiences of the Covid-19 lockdown on families living in the multi-ethnic and deprived city of Bradford, England. Methods : Questionnaire surveys were sent during the Covid-19 UK lockdown (10th April to 30 th June 2020) to parents in two prospective birth cohort studies. Cross tabulations explored variation by ethnicity and employment status. Text from open questions were analysed using thematic analysis. Results : Of 7,652 families invited, 2,144 (28%) participated. Ethnicity of respondents was: 957 (47%) Pakistani heritage, 715 (35%) White British and 356 (18%) other. 971 (46%) live in the most deprived decile of material deprivation in England. 2,043 (95%) were mothers and 101 were partners. The results summarised below are based on the mothers’ responses. Many families live in poor quality (N=574, 28%), and overcrowded (N=364, 19%) housing; this was more common in families of Pakistani heritage and other ethnicities. Financial (N=738 (37%), food (N=396, 20%), employment (N=728, 37%) and housing (N=204, 10%) insecurities were common, particularly in those who were furloughed, self-employed not working or unemployed. Clinically significant depression and anxiety symptoms were reported by 372 (19%) and 318 (16%) of the mothers and were more common in White British mothers and those with economic insecurity. Open text responses corroborated these findings and highlighted high levels of anxiety about becoming ill or dying from Covid-19. Conclusions : The experiences of the Covid-19 lockdown in this ethnically diverse and deprived population highlight a large number of families living in poor housing conditions, suffering from economic insecurity and poor mental health. There is a need for policy makers and commissioners to better support these families.

Background : The roll out of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are now underway in the UK, and ensuring good uptake in vulnerable communities will be critical to reducing hospital admissions and deaths. There is emerging evidence that vaccine hesitancy is higher in ethnic minorities and deprived areas, and that this may be caused by misinformation in the community. This study aims to understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in an ethnically diverse and deprived population. Methods : Questionnaire surveys were sent to parents in the Born in Bradford study. Cross tabulations explored variation by ethnicity and deprivation. Text from open-ended questions was analysed using thematic analysis. Results : 535 (31%) of 1727 invited between 29 th October-9 th December 2020 participated in the study. 154 (29%) of respondents do want a vaccine, 53 (10%) do not. The majority had not thought about it (N=154, 29%) or were unsure (N=161, 30%). Vaccine hesitancy differed significantly by ethnicity and deprivation: 43% (95% CIs: 37-54%) of White British and 60% (35-81%) in the least deprived areas do want a vaccine, compared to 13% (9-19%) of Pakistani heritage and 20% (15-26%) in the most deprived areas. Those that distrusted the NHS were more likely to not want a vaccine (30%, 15-50%). Reasons for not wanting a vaccine were commonly explained by confusion and distrust caused by prevalent misinformation. Conclusions : There is a much higher level of vaccine hesitancy in ethnic minorities, those living in deprived areas and those that distrust the NHS. There is an urgent need to tackle the overwhelming misinformation about COVID-19 that is leading to this uncertainty and confusion about the vaccines. If not addressed there is a high risk of unequitable roll out of the vaccination programme in the UK.