We compared intention to receive the seasonal influenza vaccine with a prospective coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine among undecided or COVID-19 vaccine hesitant individuals to better understand the underlying differences and similarities in factors associated with vaccine intention. We delivered a cross-sectional online survey in October–November 2020. We included psychological constructs and sociodemographic variables informed by theory. We conducted pairwise comparisons and multiple linear regression models to explore associations between vaccine intention and psychological constructs. We recruited 1,660 participants, where 47.6% responded that they would likely receive the influenza vaccine, 31.0% that they would probably not accept the vaccination and 21.4% were unsure. In relation to the prospective COVID-19 vaccine, 39.0% responded that they would likely receive the vaccination, 23.7% that they would probably not accept the vaccination and 37.3% were unsure. Unique factors positively associated with COVID-19 vaccine intention were: perceived knowledge sufficiency about vaccine safety, beliefs about vaccine safety, and living in an area of low deprivation. The only unique factor positively associated with influenza intention was past influenza behavior. The strongest common predictors positively associated with intention were: favorable vaccine attitudes, the anticipated regret they may feel following infection if they were not to receive a vaccine, and the expectation from family or friends to accept the vaccine. Despite overall similarities in those factors associated with vaccination intention, we identified unique influences on intention. This additional insight will help support the planning and tailoring of future immunizations programmes for the respective viruses.

Early studies showed that 28–36% of UK adults were unsure or unwilling to be vaccinated against COVID-19. We wanted to identify which socio-demographic, socio-economic, personal health and psychological factors were associated with COVID-19 vaccine intentions (CVI) in adults living in England who did not want, yet to consider, or not sure whether to vaccinate. In October/November 2020, prior to vaccine availability, we surveyed adults stratified by gender, region, and deprivation, with additional purposive sampling of those aged 50 and over and those from an ethnic minority. Two hundred and ten did not want; 407 had yet to consider; and 1,043 were not sure whether to be vaccinated. Factors positively associated with CVI were: favorable vaccine views, trust in institutions associated with vaccine approval, vaccine subjective norms, anticipated regret of not having a vaccine, perceived vaccine benefits, perceived safety knowledge sufficiency, and a history of having an influenza vaccine. Factors negatively associated were: anti-lockdown views, and being a health or social care worker. Whilst showing significant relationships with CVI when analyzed in isolation, neighborhood deprivation and ethnicity did show an independent relationship to intention when all study measures were controlled for. Our findings suggest vaccine promotion focusing on the anticipated regret of not having a vaccine, the benefits of a mass COVID-19 immunization program, and the safety of a vaccine whilst ensuring or engendering trust in those bodies that brand a campaign may be most supportive of COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

What does social work supervision help with? There are many different models of supervision and an increasing amount of research. Much of this is concerned with the content of supervision and how supervisors (and supervisees) should behave — and these are important concerns. But even more important is the question of who or what supervision helps with. Supervision is widely considered to have many different functions but in the context of UK local authority social work, must ultimately prove itself as a method for helping people who use services. This article reports on a survey of 315 social workers from UK local authorities. Most reported that supervision helps primarily with management oversight and accountability. However, the small number of practitioners who received regular group supervision and those who received supervision more frequently said it helped with a much broader range of things.

The path of a complaint and patient satisfaction with complaint resolution is often dependent on the responses of healthcare professionals (HCPs). It is therefore important to understand the influences shaping HCP behaviour. This systematic review aimed to (1) identify the key actors, behaviours and factors influencing HCPs’ responses to complaints, and (2) apply behavioural science frameworks to classify these influences and provide recommendations for more effective complaints handling behaviours. A systematic literature review of UK published and unpublished (so-called grey literature) studies was conducted (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022301980). Five electronic databases [Scopus, MEDLINE/Ovid, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC)] were searched up to September 2021. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting primary data, conducted in secondary and tertiary care, written in English and published between 2001 and 2021 (studies from primary care, mental health, forensic, paediatric or dental care services were excluded). Extracted data included study characteristics, participant quotations from qualitative studies, results from questionnaire and survey studies, case studies reported in commentaries and descriptions, and summaries of results from reports. Data were synthesized narratively using inductive thematic analysis, followed by deductive mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). In all, 22 articles and three reports met the inclusion criteria. A total of 8 actors, 22 behaviours and 24 influences on behaviour were found. Key factors influencing effective handling of complaints included HCPs’ knowledge of procedures, communication skills and training, available time and resources, inherent contradictions within the role, role authority, HCPs’ beliefs about their ability to handle complaints, beliefs about the value of complaints, managerial and peer support and organizational culture and emotions. Themes mapped onto nine TDF domains: knowledge, skills, environmental context and resources, social/professional role and identity, social influences, beliefs about capability, intentions and beliefs about consequences and emotions. Recommendations were generated using the Behaviour Change Wheel approach. Through the application of behavioural science, we identified a wide range of individual, social/organizational and environmental influences on complaints handling. Our behavioural analysis informed recommendations for future intervention strategies, with particular emphasis on reframing and building on the positive aspects of complaints as an underutilized source of feedback at an individual and organizational level.

Background: There has been a rapid increase in the number of, and demand for, organisations offering behavioural science advice to government over the last ten years. Yet we know little of the state of science and the experiences of these evidence providers. Aims and objectives: To identify current practice in this emerging field and the factors that impact on the production of high-quality and policy-relevant research. Methods: A qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with representatives from a purposeful sample of 15 units in the vanguard of international behavioural science research in policy. The data were analysed thematically. Findings: Relationships with policymakers were important in the inception of units, research conduct, implementation and dissemination of findings. Knowledge exchange facilitated a shared understanding of policy issues/context, and of behavioural science. Sufficient funding was crucial to maintain critical capacity in the units’ workforces, build a research portfolio beneficial to policymakers and the units, and to ensure full and transparent dissemination. Discussion and conclusion: Findings highlight the positive impact of strong evidence-provider/user relationships and the importance of governments’ commitment to co-produced research programmes to address policy problems and transparency in the dissemination of methods and findings. From the findings we have created a framework, ‘STEPS’ (Sharing, Transparency, Engagement, Partnership, Strong relationships), of five recommendations for units working with policymakers. These findings will be of value to all researchers conducting research on behalf of government.

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.