Vaccination is vital to protect the public against COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We searched a range of databases (Embase, Medline, Psychology & Behavioral Science, PsycInfo, Web of Science and NIH Preprints Portfolio) from March 2020 to July 2021 for studies which reported primary quantitative or qualitative research on interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Outcome measures included vaccination uptake and reported intention to vaccinate. Reviews, position papers, conference abstracts, protocol papers and papers not in English were excluded. The NHLBI quality assessment was used to assess risk of bias. In total, 39 studies across 33 papers met the inclusion criteria. A total of 28 were assessed as good quality. They included interventions relating to communication content, communication delivery, communication presentation, policy or vaccination delivery, with 7 measuring vaccination uptake and 32 measuring vaccination intention. A narrative synthesis was conducted, which highlighted that there is reasonable evidence from studies investigating real behaviour suggesting that personalising communications and sending booking reminders via text message increases vaccine uptake. Findings on vaccination intention are mixed but suggest that communicating uncertainty about the vaccine does not decrease intention, whereas making vaccination mandatory could have a negative impact. Although much of the research used experimental designs, very few measured real behavioural outcomes. Understanding which interventions are most effective amongst vaccine-hesitant populations and in the context of booster vaccinations will be important as vaccine roll outs continue across the world.

This pre-registered systematic review aimed to examine whether online support groups affect the health and wellbeing of individuals with a chronic condition, and what mechanisms may influence such effects. In September 2024, literature searches were conducted across electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science and Google Scholar), pre-publication websites (MedRxiv and PsyArXiv) and grey literature websites. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included if they explored the impact of online support groups on the health and wellbeing outcomes of individuals with a chronic condition. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included studies. In total 100 papers met the inclusion criteria with their findings presented in a thematic synthesis. Health and wellbeing outcomes were categorised as: physical health, mental health, quality of life, social wellbeing, behaviour and decision-making, and adjustment. Mechanisms reported in these studies related to exchanging support, sharing experiences, content expression, and social comparison. User and group characteristics were also explored. The included studies suggest that online support groups can have a positive impact on social wellbeing, behaviour, and adjustment, with inconclusive findings for physical health and quality of life. However, there is also the possibility of a negative effect on anxiety and distress, particularly when exposed to other group members’ difficult experiences. Research comparing different online group features, such as platforms, size, and duration is needed. In particular, future research should be experimental to overcome the limitations of some of the cross-sectional designs of the included studies. The review was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research in Emergency Preparedness and Response. Pre-registration ID: CRD42023399258

Introduction: The concept of “working from home” is extremely topical following the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, it is unsurprising that there has been an increased interest in collating research related to homeworking. This has been carried out by multiple reviews, all with slightly different research aims and methodologies. Collating the findings from the available reviews is therefore highly beneficial to establish the experience of homeworking to create recommendations for the future of home-based work. Methods: An umbrella review was carried out. In June 2022, literature searches were conducted across 4 electronic databases. Published reviews of literature that used a systematic process, were focused on working from home populations, and detailed factors that could be related to the personal experience of homeworking (eg, barriers, facilitators, advantages, disadvantages) were included. Results: A total of 1930 records were screened and 6 review articles were included. Results report on the following sections: working environment (eg, workplace design, space conditions), personal impact (eg, satisfaction, career impact), and health (eg, physical health, well-being) including a total of 19 themes. Mixed findings were apparent for nearly all included themes, highlighting the need to consider individual and contextual circumstances when researching working from home. Conclusions: This review establishes the importance of retaining flexibility while homeworking for employees, managers, and organizations. Essentially, a one-size-fits-all approach to working from home is impractical as individual circumstances limit application. Eight recommendations for the future of working from home are suggested.

The aim of this narrative review was to explore the conditions under which enforcement likely is, or is not, an effective strategy to increase adherence to recommended protective behaviours during COVID-19. Relevant search terms were entered into four key databases (Google, Google Scholar, medXriv, and psyArXiv) to identify both academic and non-academic papers relating to the use of enforcement. Primary research, reviews, blogs, newspaper reports, and theoretical descriptions were included. This review suggests that enforcement is less effective when: it is applied inconsistently; rules are ambiguous; and behaviours are unobservable. Providing food and financial support, creating social norms, and increasing trust are more effective in addressing specific barriers and fostering voluntary adherence. Where enforcement forms part of the strategy for policing COVID-19 regulations, rules must be clear and local responders must be given time and opportunity to plan their response as new rules are implemented. Due to the narrative nature of the review, and the rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, some evidence may have been inadvertently excluded. Findings inform an understanding of the impact of the public narrative of enforcement on adherence and facilitate the development of recommendations for increasing adherence to protective behaviours during COVID-19. Given the importance of public adherence, these recommendations are not only useful in the context of COVID-19 but also for future public health emergencies. This narrative review is the first to explore the circumstances under which enforcement can increase or reduce adherence with COVID-19 guidelines, generating recommendations for improved public adherence.

As many individuals with Long Covid are left without formal support, they have turned to online support groups for help. In a pre‐registered study, interviews were carried out with 21 adults with Long Covid to explore experiences of using online support groups, to understand whether participants felt these experiences influenced their health and wellbeing, and to identify whether group members developed a shared social identity. The reported benefits varied by the nature and size of the online support group: participants reported that smaller groups enabled a sense of community; occupation groups provided work‐specific support; and larger groups helped with symptom management. Interviewees reported that support groups validated members' experiences, made them feel less alone, and enhanced self‐efficacy by providing and offering support and enabling participants to learn new skills. However, negative outcomes were also reported, such as increased fear and reduced wellbeing. Shared identities developed based on mutual Long Covid experiences, shared values towards illness management, and pre‐existing identities. Reported experiences also varied between online support group size (large vs small); type (e.g., advocacy‐focused, yoga‐based, local or international); and platform (video‐ vs text‐based) and throughout the illness. Whilst this study recognises the necessity of medical treatment for Long Covid, we also recommended that individuals with Long Covid explore different support groups to find the most suitable group for them in terms of preferred group features, values towards illness management and enablement of social identities.

Objective: We examined whether varying information about long COVID would affect expectations about the illness. Method: In October 2021, we conducted a 2 (Illness Description: long COVID vs. ongoing COVID-19 recovery) × 2 (Symptom Uncertainty: uncertainty emphasized vs. not emphasized) × 2 (Efficacy of Support: enhanced vs. basic support) between-subjects randomized online experimental study. Participants (N = 1,110) were presented with a scenario describing a positive COVID-19 test result, followed by one of eight scenarios describing a long COVID diagnosis and then completed outcome measures of illness expectations including: symptom severity, symptom duration, quality of life, personal control, treatment control, and illness coherence. Results: We ran a series of 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs on the outcome variables. We found a main effect of illness description: individuals reported longer symptom duration and less illness coherence when the illness was described as long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery). There was a main effect of symptom uncertainty: when uncertainty was emphasized, participants reported longer expected symptom duration (p < .001), less treatment control (p = .031), and less illness coherence (p < .001) than when uncertainty was not emphasized. There was a main effect of efficacy of support: participants reported higher personal control (p = .004) and higher treatment control (p = .037) when support was enhanced (compared to basic support). Conclusions: Communications around long COVID should avoid emphasizing symptom uncertainty and aim to provide people with access to additional support and information on how they can facilitate their recovery.