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.

ObjectivesTo determine whether local trainer-led TARGET antibiotic interactive workshops improve antibiotic dispensing in general practice.MethodsUsing a McNulty–Zelen-design randomized controlled trial within three regions of England, 152 general practices were stratified by clinical commissioning group, antibiotic dispensing rate and practice patient list size, then randomly allocated to intervention (offered TARGET workshop that incorporated a presentation, reflection on antibiotic data, promotion of patient and general practice (GP) staff resources, clinical scenarios and action planning, 73 practices) or control (usual practice, 79 practices). The primary outcome measure was total oral antibiotic items dispensed/1000 patients for the year after the workshop (or pseudo-workshop date for controls), adjusted for the previous year’s dispensing.ResultsThirty-six (51%) intervention practices (166 GPs, 51 nurses and 101 other staff) accepted a TARGET workshop invitation. In the ITT analysis total antibiotic dispensing was 2.7% lower in intervention practices (95% CI −5.5% to 1%, P = 0.06) compared with controls. Dispensing in intervention practices was 4.4% lower for amoxicillin/ampicillin (95% CI 0.6%–8%, P = 0.02); 5.6% lower for trimethoprim (95% CI 0.7%–10.2%, P = 0.03); and a non-significant 7.1% higher for nitrofurantoin (95% CI −0.03 to 15%, P = 0.06). The Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE) analysis, which estimates impact in those that comply with assigned intervention, indicated 6.1% (95% CI 0.2%–11.7%, P = 0.04) lower total antibiotic dispensing in intervention practices and 11% (95% CI 1.6%–19.5%, P = 0.02) lower trimethoprim dispensing.ConclusionsThis study within usual service provision found that TARGET antibiotic workshops can help improve antibiotic use, and therefore should be considered as part of any national antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. Additional local facilitation will be needed to encourage all general practices to participate.

ObjectivesCommunity pharmacists and their staff have the potential to contribute to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). However, their barriers and opportunities are not well understood. The aim was to investigate the experiences and perceptions of community pharmacists and their teams around AMS to inform intervention development.DesignInterviews and focus groups were used to explore the views of pharmacists, pharmacy staff, general practitioners (GPs), members of pharmacy organisations and commissioners. The questioning schedule was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework which helped inform recommendations to facilitate AMS in community pharmacy.Results8 GPs, 28 pharmacists, 13 pharmacy staff, 6 representatives from pharmacy organisations in England and Wales, and 2 local stakeholders participated.Knowledge and skills both facilitated or hindered provision of self-care and compliance advice by different grades of pharmacy staff. Some staff were not aware of the impact of giving self-care and compliance advice to help control antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The pharmacy environment created barriers to AMS; this included lack of time of well-qualified staff leading to misinformation from underskilled staff to patients about the need for antibiotics or the need to visit the GP, this was exacerbated by lack of space. AMS activities were limited by absent diagnoses on antibiotic prescriptions.Several pharmacy staff felt that undertaking patient examinations, questioning the rationale for antibiotic prescriptions and performing audits would allow them to provide more tailored AMS advice.ConclusionsInterventions are required to overcome a lack of qualified staff, time and space to give patients AMS advice. Staff need to understand how self-care and antibiotic compliance advice can help control AMR. A multifaceted educational intervention including information for staff with feedback about the advice given may help. Indication for a prescription would enable pharmacists to provide more targeted antibiotic advice. Commissioners should consider the pharmacists’ role in examining patients, and giving advice about antibiotic prescriptions.

BackgroundThe TARGET (Treat Antibiotics Responsibly; Guidance, Education, Tools) Antibiotics Toolkit aims to improve antimicrobial prescribing in primary care through guidance, interactive workshops with action planning, patient facing educational and audit materials.ObjectiveTo explore GPs’, nurses’ and other stakeholders’ views of TARGET.DesignMixed methods.MethodIn 2014, 40 UK GP staff and 13 stakeholders participated in interviews or focus groups. We analysed data using a thematic framework and normalization process theory (NPT).ResultsTwo hundred and sixty-nine workshop participants completed evaluation forms, and 40 GP staff, 4 trainers and 9 relevant stakeholders participated in interviews (29) or focus groups (24). GP staffs were aware of the issues around antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and how it related to their prescribing. Most participants stated that TARGET as a whole was useful. Participants suggested the workshop needed less background on AMR, be centred around clinical cases and allow more action planning time. Participants particularly valued comparison of their practice antibiotic prescribing with others and the TARGET Treating Your Infection leaflet. The leaflet needed greater accessibility via GP computer systems. Due to time, cost, accessibility and competing priorities, many GP staff had not fully utilized all resources, especially the audit and educational materials.ConclusionsWe found evidence that the workshop is likely to be more acceptable and engaging if based around clinical scenarios, with less on AMR and more time on action planning. Greater promotion of TARGET, through Clinical Commissioning Group’s (CCG’s) and professional bodies, may improve uptake. Patient facing resources should be made accessible through computer shortcuts built into general practice software.