Vaccine hesitancy could undermine efforts to control COVID-19. We investigated the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK and identified vaccine hesitant subgroups. The ‘Understanding Society’ COVID-19 survey asked participants (n=12,035) their likelihood of vaccine uptake and reason for hesitancy. Cross-sectional analysis assessed vaccine hesitancy prevalence and logistic regression calculated odds ratios. Overall vaccine hesitancy was low (18% unlikely/very unlikely). Vaccine hesitancy was higher in women (21.0% vs 14.7%), younger age groups (26.5% in 16-24 year olds vs 4.5% in 75+) and those with lower education levels (18.6% no qualifications vs 13.2% degree qualified). Vaccine hesitancy was high in Black (71.8%) and Pakistani/Bangladeshi (42.3%) ethnic groups. Odds ratios for vaccine hesitancy were 13.42 (95% CI:6.86, 26.24) in Black and 2.54 (95% CI:1.19, 5.44) in Pakistani/Bangladeshi groups (compared to White British/Irish) and 3.54 (95%CI:2.06, 6.09) for people with no qualifications versus degree. Urgent action to address hesitancy is needed for some but not all ethnic minority groups.

Objective The ability to make an early, accurate diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has become increasingly important with the availability of new, expensive, and targeted therapies. However, plain radiography, the traditional method of detecting the characteristic bone erosions and an important adjunct in establishing a diagnosis of RA, is known to be insensitive. This study compared sonography, a modern imaging technique, with conventional radiography for the detection of erosions in the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints of patients with RA. Methods One hundred RA patients (including 40 with early disease) underwent posteroanterior radiography and sonography of the MCP joints of the dominant hand. Twenty asymptomatic control subjects also underwent sonography. Erosion sites were recorded and subsequently compared using each modality. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on the second MCP joint in 25 patients with early RA to confirm the pathologic specificity of sonographic erosions. Intraobserver reliability of sonography readings was assessed using video recordings of 55 MCP joint scans of RA patients, and interobserver reliability was assessed by comparing 160 MCP joint scans performed sequentially by 2 independent observers. Results Sonography detected 127 definite erosions in 56 of 100 RA patients, compared with radiographic detection of 32 erosions (26 [81%] of which coincided with sonographic erosions) in 17 of 100 patients (P < 0.0001). In early disease, sonography detected 6.5‐fold more erosions than did radiography, in 7.5‐fold the number of patients. In late disease, these differences were 3.4‐fold and 2.7‐fold, respectively. On MRI, all sonographic erosions not visible on radiography (n = 12) corresponded by site to MRI abnormalities. The Cohen‐kappa values for intra‐ and interobserver reliability of sonography were 0.75 and 0.76, respectively. Conclusion Sonography is a reliable technique that detects more erosions than radiography, especially in early RA. Sonographic erosions not seen on radiography corresponded to MRI bone abnormalities. This technology has potential in the management of patients with early RA/inflammatory arthritis and is likely to have major implications for the future practice of rheumatology.

Context Standardized outcomes that define successful advance care planning (ACP) are lacking. Objective To create an Organizing Framework of ACP outcome constructs and rate the importance of these outcomes. Methods This study convened a Delphi panel consisting of 52 multidisciplinary, international ACP experts including clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries. We conducted literature reviews and solicited attendee input from 5 international ACP conferences to identify initial ACP outcome constructs. In 5 Delphi rounds, we asked panelists to rate patient-centered outcomes on a 7-point “not-at-all” to “extremely important” scale. We calculated means and analyzed panelists’ input to finalize an Organizing Framework and outcome rankings. Results Organizing Framework outcome domains included process (e.g., attitudes), actions (e.g., discussions), quality of care (e.g., satisfaction), and healthcare (e.g., utilization). The top 5 outcomes included (1) care consistent with goals, mean 6.71 (±SD 0.04); (2) surrogate designation, 6.55 (0.45); (3) surrogate documentation, 6.50 (0.11); (4) discussions with surrogates, 6.40 (0.19); and (5) documents and recorded wishes are accessible when needed 6.27 (0.11). Advance directive documentation was ranked 10th, 6.01 (0.21). Panelists raised caution about whether “care consistent with goals” 6.01 (0.21). Panelists raised can be reliably measured. Conclusion A large, multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed an Organizing Framework and rated the importance of ACP outcome constructs. Top rated outcomes should be used to evaluate the success of ACP initiatives. More research is needed to create reliable and valid measurement tools for the highest rated outcomes, particularly “care consistent with goals.”

No abstract