The care home staff influenza vaccination rate in England is significantly lower than the 75% World Health Organisation recommendation. This represents a substantial potential for resident harm. Barriers to staff vaccination stem from individual and organisational levels. Existing interventions address some but not all barriers and are not underpinned by behavioural science theory. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a theory-informed intervention to improve care home staff vaccination rates compared to routine practice.Set in care homes with both nursing and residential focus, and a range of ownership status, only homes providing long stay care to older people with a staff vaccination rate below 40% are eligible to participate. Participation expressions of interest will be sought using a variety of approaches prior to seeking consent.The primary outcome measure is the proportion of staff vaccinated at 6 months, with secondary outcome measures being proportion vaccinated at 3 months, numbers of staff sick days, general practitioner and nurse visits to care home, care home resident hospitalisations and mortality.Based on the assumptions that the mean cluster (care home) size is 54 staff, a coefficient of variation of 0.48, control vaccination rate is 55%, intervention 75%, intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.2 and with 90% power, and 20% attrition, we require 39 care homes per arm.Blocked randomisation will be at the level of care home, stratified by the proportion of non-white care home staff, and implemented by Norwich Clinical Trials Unit.The intervention comprises co-designed information videos and posters, provision of in-house staff vaccination clinics, and incentive scheme and monthly data collection on trial outcomes. Beyond usual practice, the control arm will additionally contribute monthly data.Data will be collected at the start, monthly and at 6 months, and analysis will be blind to allocation. Statistical analysis will use the intention-to-treat principle with the difference in vaccination rates between groups compared using a random effect logistic regression model at the staff-level.This will be the first study to use a theory-informed intervention designed to comprehensively address identified barriers to care home staff influenza vaccination.Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN22729870. Registered on 24 August 22. Secondary identifiers: R209939, IRAS 316820, CPMS 53812.

Background/Objectives: Vaccinating care home staff is essential to protect vulnerable residents by reducing infection risks and creating a safer care environment. However, vaccine hesitancy amongst staff remains a challenge, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic raised concerns about side effects and vaccination mandates. This study examines how the pandemic influenced flu vaccine hesitancy amongst UK care home staff. Methods: Data were collected from the FluCare trials conducted over the 2021–22 and 2022–23 winter seasons to explore the impact of concurrent mandatory and non-mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies on flu vaccine uptake. A total of 52 interviews (21 from the feasibility study and 31 from the randomised control trial) were conducted with care home managers and staff. Thematic analysis identified key themes shaping staff attitudes toward flu vaccination. Results: Four central themes emerged regarding the impact of the pandemic on staff attitudes and the contextual influences shaping vaccine hesitance: (i) tension between autonomy and morals in vaccination decisions; (ii) the COVID ‘craze’ and the displacement of the flu vaccine; (iii) the role of the COVID ‘craze’ in staff vaccine fatigue; and (iv) conspiracies, (mis)information, and the significance of trust. Psychosocial theories on decision making and health behaviour were used to further interpret the findings. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that post-COVID-19 interventions in care home setting should address the issues of autonomy, vaccine fatigue, and trust to enhance vaccine uptake. Understanding these factors could support more effective strategies to address hesitancy amongst care home staff in future vaccination campaigns.

Background: Ménière’s disease is a disabling condition causing vertigo and hearing loss yet remains incompletely understood. Registry studies have the potential to answer important questions about phenotypes and natural history of clinical conditions. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a patient-centered national Ménière’s disease registry. Methods: This was an observational study carried out at 4 state-funded hospitals and 4 independent clinics, within 3 distinct urban and rural regions within the UK. Adults with Ménière’s disease were eligible to participate. A range of patient reported data, questionnaire data and clinical data (audiometric, radiological, and specialist balance testing data) was inputted into a bespoke database. Results: The study recruited 411 participants. The majority of participants chose online recruitment (73%) and 27% chose via paper-based methods for participation. A small majority (57%) of participants were female. 96% of participants were of white ethnicity. Data completeness from online or postal data collection was similar. Around 20% of participants had audiological evidence of bilateral Ménière’s disease. Conclusion: This feasibility study has successfully piloted methods for recruitment of hundreds of participants diagnosed with Ménière’s disease. Participants actively contributed their data to a robust and extensive data collection platform. The positive outcomes from this initial feasibility study are anticipated to serve as a foundation for the future expansion of the registry. This expansion holds the potential to address a broad spectrum of request, encompassing all aspects of the nature of Ménière’s disease. Cite this article as: Phillips J, Murdin L, Rea P, et al. Development of a national Meniere’s disease registry: A feasibility study. J Int Adv Otol. 2024;20(4):339-344.

Introduction: Care home (CH) influenza vaccination of staff improves resident health, yet uptake remains low at just over 11% (England, 2025/2026). We report an economic evaluation (EE) of ‘FluCare’, an intervention to increase staff influenza vaccination through: vaccination clinics at CHs; promotional materials; and CH financial incentives. Method: Seventy-five CHs were randomised to FluCare or control. A cost-consequence analysis took the influenza vaccination programme funder perspective, but also extended to the National Health Service (NHS) and CH perspective. Costs included: influenza vaccination; administration fee; FluCare components; CH resident NHS utilisation. Outcomes were: staff influenza vaccination rates; staff sickness; and resident mortality. Sensitivity analyses excluded intervention CHs that did not host vaccination clinics. Results: Compared to control CHs, adjusted analysis found intervention homes with a mean absolute increase in vaccination rates of 1.8% (95% CI: -6.0%, 10.8%; p=0.572) at an increased cost of £451 (95% CI: £239, £675; p<0.001) to the vaccination programme funders: £249 per additional percentage point (PAPP) per CH. Vaccination clinics were delivered late in the influenza season, with 80% taking place from February 2023. Including only intervention CHs that hosted staff flu vaccination clinics (23/35), increases the mean difference to 10.1% (95% CI: 0.9%, 21.9%; p=0.018) and costs to £805 (95% CI: £603, £1,079; p<0.001): £79 PAPP per CH. Differences between trial arms in other costs and outcomes were marginal and generally non-significant. Conclusions: FluCare delivered little improvement when staff flu vaccination clinics did not occur and had little impact on other costs/outcomes. Cost-effectiveness depends on willingness-to-pay for increased staff vaccination, but cost PAPP per CH improved from £249 to £79 when only CHs hosting clinics were considered. Late implementation, likely reduced impact by limiting clinic delivery, as reflected in sensitivity analysis. Future evaluations should implement FluCare earlier in the season. Trial registration: ISRCTN22729870. Registered on 24 August 22. Secondary identifiers: R209939, IRAS 316820, CPMS 53812.