No abstract

Background Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. Methods A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September−17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. Results 71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: ‘excessive mistrust’ (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and ‘positive healthcare experiences’ (r=−0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. Conclusions COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

BackgroundBefore considering whether to use a multivariable (diagnostic or prognostic) prediction model, it is essential that its performance be evaluated in data that were not used to develop the model (referred to as external validation). We critically appraised the methodological conduct and reporting of external validation studies of multivariable prediction models.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of articles describing some form of external validation of one or more multivariable prediction models indexed in PubMed core clinical journals published in 2010. Study data were extracted in duplicate on design, sample size, handling of missing data, reference to the original study developing the prediction models and predictive performance measures.Results11,826 articles were identified and 78 were included for full review, which described the evaluation of 120 prediction models. in participant data that were not used to develop the model. Thirty-three articles described both the development of a prediction model and an evaluation of its performance on a separate dataset, and 45 articles described only the evaluation of an existing published prediction model on another dataset. Fifty-seven percent of the prediction models were presented and evaluated as simplified scoring systems. Sixteen percent of articles failed to report the number of outcome events in the validation datasets. Fifty-four percent of studies made no explicit mention of missing data. Sixty-seven percent did not report evaluating model calibration whilst most studies evaluated model discrimination. It was often unclear whether the reported performance measures were for the full regression model or for the simplified models.ConclusionsThe vast majority of studies describing some form of external validation of a multivariable prediction model were poorly reported with key details frequently not presented. The validation studies were characterised by poor design, inappropriate handling and acknowledgement of missing data and one of the most key performance measures of prediction models i.e. calibration often omitted from the publication. It may therefore not be surprising that an overwhelming majority of developed prediction models are not used in practice, when there is a dearth of well-conducted and clearly reported (external validation) studies describing their performance on independent participant data.

BackgroundThe World Health Organisation estimates that by 2030 there will be approximately 350 million people with type 2 diabetes. Associated with renal complications, heart disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease, early identification of patients with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes or those at an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes is an important challenge. We sought to systematically review and critically assess the conduct and reporting of methods used to develop risk prediction models for predicting the risk of having undiagnosed (prevalent) or future risk of developing (incident) type 2 diabetes in adults.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify studies published before May 2011 that describe the development of models combining two or more variables to predict the risk of prevalent or incident type 2 diabetes. We extracted key information that describes aspects of developing a prediction model including study design, sample size and number of events, outcome definition, risk predictor selection and coding, missing data, model-building strategies and aspects of performance.ResultsThirty-nine studies comprising 43 risk prediction models were included. Seventeen studies (44%) reported the development of models to predict incident type 2 diabetes, whilst 15 studies (38%) described the derivation of models to predict prevalent type 2 diabetes. In nine studies (23%), the number of events per variable was less than ten, whilst in fourteen studies there was insufficient information reported for this measure to be calculated. The number of candidate risk predictors ranged from four to sixty-four, and in seven studies it was unclear how many risk predictors were considered. A method, not recommended to select risk predictors for inclusion in the multivariate model, using statistical significance from univariate screening was carried out in eight studies (21%), whilst the selection procedure was unclear in ten studies (26%). Twenty-one risk prediction models (49%) were developed by categorising all continuous risk predictors. The treatment and handling of missing data were not reported in 16 studies (41%).ConclusionsWe found widespread use of poor methods that could jeopardise model development, including univariate pre-screening of variables, categorisation of continuous risk predictors and poor handling of missing data. The use of poor methods affects the reliability of the prediction model and ultimately compromises the accuracy of the probability estimates of having undiagnosed type 2 diabetes or the predicted risk of developing type 2 diabetes. In addition, many studies were characterised by a generally poor level of reporting, with many key details to objectively judge the usefulness of the models often omitted.

SummaryBackgroundSleep difficulties might be a contributory causal factor in the occurrence of mental health problems. If this is true, improving sleep should benefit psychological health. We aimed to determine whether treating insomnia leads to a reduction in paranoia and hallucinations.MethodsWe did this single-blind, randomised controlled trial (OASIS) at 26 UK universities. University students with insomnia were randomly assigned (1:1) with simple randomisation to receive digital cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for insomnia or usual care, and the research team were masked to the treatment. Online assessments took place at weeks 0, 3, 10 (end of therapy), and 22. The primary outcome measures were for insomnia, paranoia, and hallucinatory experiences. We did intention-to-treat analyses. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN61272251.FindingsBetween March 5, 2015, and Feb 17, 2016, we randomly assigned 3755 participants to receive digital CBT for insomnia (n=1891) or usual practice (n=1864). Compared with usual practice, the sleep intervention at 10 weeks reduced insomnia (adjusted difference 4·78, 95% CI 4·29 to 5·26, Cohen's d=1·11; p<0·0001), paranoia (−2·22, −2·98 to −1·45, Cohen's d=0·19; p<0·0001), and hallucinations (−1·58, −1·98 to −1·18, Cohen's d=0·24; p<0·0001). Insomnia was a mediator of change in paranoia and hallucinations. No adverse events were reported.InterpretationTo our knowledge, this is the largest randomised controlled trial of a psychological intervention for a mental health problem. It provides strong evidence that insomnia is a causal factor in the occurrence of psychotic experiences and other mental health problems. Whether the results generalise beyond a student population requires testing. The treatment of disrupted sleep might require a higher priority in mental health provision.FundingWellcome Trust.