Background: One way of measuring the quality of home care are quality indicators (QIs) derived from data collected with the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC). In order to produce meaningful results for quality improvement and quality comparisons across home care organizations (HCOs) and over time, RAI-HC QIs must be valid and reliable. The aim of this systematic review was to identify currently existing RAI-HC QIs and to summarize the scientific knowledge on the validity and reliability of these QIs. Methods: A systematic review was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library. Studies describing the development process or the psychometric characteristics of RAI-HC QIs were eligible. The data extraction involved a general description of the included studies as well as the identified RAI-HC QIs and information on validity and reliability. The methodological quality of the identified RAI-HC QI sets was assessed using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. Results: Four studies out of 659 initial hits met the inclusion criteria. The included studies described the development and validation process of three RAI-HC QI sets comprising 48 unique RAI-HC QIs, which predominantly refer to outcome of care. Overall, the validity and reliability of the identified RAI-HC QIs were not sufficiently tested. The methodological quality of the three identified RAI-HC QI sets varied across the four AIRE instrument domains. None of the QI sets reached high methodological quality, defined as scores of 50% and higher in all four AIRE instrument domains. Conclusions: This is the first review that systematically summarized and appraised the available scientific evidence on the validity and reliability of RAI-HC QIs. It identified insufficient reporting of RAI-HC QIs validation processes and reliability as well as missing state-of-the-art methodologies. The review provides guidance as to what additional validity and reliability testing are needed to strengthen the scientific soundness of RAI-HC QIs. Considering that RAI-HC QIs are already implemented and used to measure and compare quality of home care, further investigations on RAI-HC QIs reliability and validity is recommended.

The speed and innovation of the COVID-19 vaccine development has been accompanied by insecurity and skepticism. Young adults’ attitude to vaccination remains under investigation, although herd immunity cannot be reached without them. The HEalth in Students during the Corona pandemic study (HES-C) provided the opportunity to investigate vaccination intention in 1478 students in the sixth survey wave (January 2021), including vaccination intention, psychological antecedents of vaccine hesitancy, trust in government’s vaccination strategy, and vaccination history. Associations with vaccination intention were analyzed with multivariate ordinal regression and predicted margins were calculated adjusting for gender, age, anxiety, health profession, and subjective health status. A third was decided (yes 25.1%, no 7.6%), and 68% were unsure about getting the COVID-19 vaccine when available. Next to demographic characteristics, vaccination history (influenza vaccination OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.06–1.83, travel vaccination OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.04–1.60), trust in vaccination strategy (OR = 2.40; 95% CI: 1.89–3.05), and 5C dimensions were associated with vaccination intention: confidence (OR = 2.52; 95% CI: 2.09–3.03), complacency (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66–0.96), calculation (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.70–0.89), constraints (OR = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.99–1.41), and collective responsibility (OR = 4.47; 95% CI: 3.69–5.40). Addressing psychological antecedents and strengthening trust in official strategies through targeted campaigns and interventions may increase decisiveness and result in higher vaccination rates.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: In Switzerland, COVID-19 vaccines have been approved for children aged 5–11 years only recently, whereas vaccination of adolescents aged 12 years and older was approved in early summer 2021. Although the disease burden in children and adolescents has been reasonably mild, they can transmit COVID-19 to others, thus vaccinating this age group may help to curb the COVID-19 pandemic. The main objective was to investigate the association between five psychological antecedents of vaccination hesitancy in COVID-19 immunised parents and their intention to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19. Further, we examined if parental vaccination history and conviction of the benefits of Swiss paediatric vaccination recommendations are associated with child vaccination intention, and where parents would like the vaccination performed.  METHODS: A cross-sectional anonymous online survey in the COVID-19 vaccination centre Winterthur was conducted between 16 May and 30 September 2021. Individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccines in the vaccination centre were invited to participate. All individuals who participated in the survey after their first dose with children under 16 years were included in the analysis (n = 1318). Using multivariable logistic regression, the association between our main predictor variables, psychological antecedents (confidence, constraints, complacency, calculation, collective responsibility) measured by the validated 5C scale, and parents’ intention to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19 was analysed, adjusted for parental vaccination history, conviction of benefits of vaccination recommendations for children and adults, children’s age group, sociodemographic factors, and time-point of vaccine authorisation for 12–16-year-olds. RESULTS: 58.7% of the parents intended to vaccinate their child against COVID-19. Their preferred vaccination location for their child was the paediatrician or family doctor. Three psychological antecedents were associated with vaccination intention: confidence (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–1.76; borderline significant), calculation (AOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58–0.81), and collective responsibility (AOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.47–2.52). Influenza vaccination (AOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.15–2.03) and conviction of the benefits of the Swiss vaccination recommendations for children and adolescents were independently associated with parental vaccination intention. CONCLUSIONS: Campaigns on COVID-19 vaccination for children may increase the intention of parents to have a child vaccinated when they address collective responsibility and calculation (weighing risks and benefits), independent of the conviction of the benefits of the vaccination recommendations, which was also a significant factor. The findings further show that parents of younger children favour their paediatrician or family doctor over vaccination centres as the vaccination setting for their child, an important finding for paediatric COVID-19 vaccination strategies.

Background Despite an increasing importance of home care, quality assurance in this healthcare sector in Switzerland is hardly established. In 2010, Swiss home care quality indicators (QIs) based on the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC) were developed. However, these QIs have not been revised since, although internationally new RAI-HC QIs have emerged. The objective of this study was to assess the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs to measure quality of home care in Switzerland from a public health and healthcare providers’ perspective. Methods First, the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs, identified in a recent systematic review, was assessed by a multidisciplinary expert panel based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method taking into account indicators’ public health relevance, potential of influence, and comprehensibility. Second, the QIs selected by the experts were afterwards rated regarding their relevance, potential of influence, and practicability from a healthcare providers’ perspective in focus groups with home care nurses based on the Nominal-Group-Technique. Data were analyzed using median scores and the Disagreement Index. Results 18 of 43 RAI-HC QIs were rated appropriate by the experts from a public health perspective. The 18 QIs cover clinical, psychosocial, functional and service use aspects. Seven of the 18 QIs were subsequently rated appropriate by home care nurses from a healthcare providers’ perspective. The focus of these QIs is narrow, because three of seven QIs are pain-related. From both perspectives, the majority of RAI-HC QIs were rated inappropriate because of insufficient potential of influence, with healthcare providers rating them more critically. Conclusions The study shows that the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs differs according to the stakeholder perspective and the intended use of QIs. The findings of this study can guide policy-makers and home care organizations on selecting QIs and to critically reflect on their appropriate use.