No abstract

Background Large-scale vaccination is fundamental to combatting COVID-19. In March 2021, the UK’s vaccination programme had delivered vaccines to large proportions of older and more vulnerable population groups; however, there was concern that uptake would be lower among young people. This research was designed to elicit the preferences of 18–29-year-olds regarding key delivery characteristics and assess the influence of these on intentions to get vaccinated, to inform planning for this cohort. Methods From 25 March to 2 April 2021, an online sample of 2012 UK adults aged 18–29 years participated in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Participants made six choices, each involving two SMS invitations to book a vaccination appointment and an opt-out. Invitations had four attributes (1 × 5 levels, 3 × 3 levels): delivery mode, appointment timing, proximity, and sender. These were systematically varied according to a d-optimal design. Responses were analysed using a mixed logit model. Results The main effects logit model revealed a large alternative-specific constant (β = 1.385, SE = 0.067, p < 0.001), indicating a strong preference for ‘opting in’ to appointment invitations. Pharmacies were dispreferred to the local vaccination centre (β = − 0.256, SE = 0.072, p < 0.001), appointments in locations that were 30–45 min travel time from one’s premises were dispreferred to locations that were less than 15 min away (β = − 0.408, SE = 0.054, p < 0.001), and, compared to invitations from the NHS, SMSs forwarded by ‘a friend’ were dispreferred (β = − 0.615, SE = 0.056, p < 0.001) but invitations from the General Practitioner were preferred (β = 0.105, SE = 0.048, p = 0.028). Conclusions The results indicated that the existing configuration of the UK’s vaccination programme was well-placed to deliver vaccines to 18–29-year-olds; however, some adjustments might enhance acceptance. Local pharmacies were not preferred; long travel times were a disincentive but close proximity (0–15 min from one’s premises) was not necessary; and either the ‘NHS’ or ‘Your GP’ would serve as adequate invitation sources. This research informed COVID-19 policy in the UK, and contributes to a wider body of Discrete Choice Experiment evidence on citizens’ preferences, requirements and predicted behaviours regarding COVID-19.

BackgroundLarge-scale vaccination is fundamental to combatting COVID-19. In March 2021, the UK’s vaccination programme had delivered vaccines to large proportions of older and more vulnerable population groups; however, there was concern that uptake would be lower among young people. This research was designed to elicit the preferences of 18-29-year-olds with respect to key delivery characteristics.MethodsFrom 25 March - 2 April 2021, an online sample of 2,021 UK adults aged 18-29 years participated in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Participants made six choices, each between two SMS invitations to get vaccinated; each choice also had an opt-out. Each invitation had four attributes (1 x 5 levels, 3 x 3 levels): delivery mode, appointment timing, proximity, and SMS sender. These were systematically varied according to a d-optimal fractional factorial design. Order of presentation was randomised for each participant. Responses were analysed using a mixed logit model.ResultsThe logit model revealed a large alternative-specific constant (β = 1.385, SE = 0.067, p <0.001), indicating a strong preference for ‘opting in’ to appointment invitations. Pharmacies were dispreferred to the local vaccination centre (β = -0.256, SE = 0.072, p <0.001), appointments in locations that were 30-45 minutes travel time from one’s premises were dispreferred to locations that were less than 15 minutes away (β = -0.408, SE = 0.054, p <0.001), and, compared to invitations sent by the NHS, SMSs forwarded by ‘a friend’ were dispreferred (β = -0.615, SE = 0.056, p <0.001) but invitations from the General Practitioner were preferred (β = 0.105, SE = 0.048, p = 0.028).ConclusionsThe results indicated that the existing configuration of the UK’s mass vaccination programme was well-placed to deliver vaccines to 18-29-year-olds; however, some adjustments might enhance acceptance. Local pharmacies were not preferred; long travel times were a disincentive but close proximity (0-15 minutes from one’s premises) was not necessary; and either the ‘NHS’ or ‘Your GP’ would serve as adequate invitation sources. This research informed COVID-19 policy in the UK, and contributes to a wider body of Discrete Choice Experiment evidence on citizens’ preferences, requirements and predicted behaviours regarding COVID-19.

Genome editing, also known as gene editing, is one of a group of precision breeding techniques used to develop new varieties of plants and to introduce variation in animals. Plants and animals developed using these techniques can then be used for food. Genome editing in food may be an area of policy divergence now that the UK has left the EU, as the UK government vocally intends to drive change in this area.1The Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) environmental releases legislation (stemming from EU legislation) underpins the current GM food and feed regulations. The Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) holds the lead responsibility for GMO legislation in England and for genome editing which currently falls under it. GMO regulation and policy is devolved in the UK, with the devolved governments having separate legislation. The responsibility of food and feed produced from GMOs is held by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) in Scotland. Under the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern Ireland is obliged to align with EU Single Market rules on food and feed, which includes matters related to GMOs.The UK Government disagreed with the 2018 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling that genome edited organisms should be regulated as GMOs even when the outcomes could have been generated by traditional breeding methods.2 There is now interest in reviewing the regulation of genome editing, which requires changing the definition of a GMO in legislation. Defra ran a public consultation from January to March 2021 on genetic technologies including a proposal to change the legislation to amend the definition of a GMO. Defra will use consultation responses to help decide whether to change this legislation in England.3This research project was commissioned to run alongside the Defra consultation, and complements the Defra consultation by gathering evidence on consumer interests 1 Government website page with Boris Johnsons first speech as Prime Minister2 Government consultation page which states the Government’s disagreement with the EJC ruling3 The webpage for the DEFRA consultation on genetic technologies 5 specifically, to help inform future food policy. This research will also help inform communications with consumers if new genome edited food policy is introduced. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned Ipsos MORI to conduct a mixed methods social science research project. The qualitative stage of this research consisted of a series of online deliberative dialogue workshops, bridged by an online community, with 80 consumers across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This was followed by a quantitative online survey of 2,066 consumers representative of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. There is no one definition of genome editing used in the UK, either in legislation nor one that has been agreed by the UK Government, and the FSA recognises that genome editing uses a spectrum of tools and can result in a range of modifications. The definition used for this project covers a specific sub-set of genome editing outcomes and was agreed between internal and external experts for the purpose of the consumer workshops in order to align with the parallel Defra consultation definition. The definition of genome editing used for this study therefore focuses specifically on genome editing in plants and animals that could also be achieved using traditional breeding (referred to as conventional breeding throughout this report).

No abstract