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.

Background An invisible threat has visibly altered the world. Governments and key institutions have had to implement decisive responses to the danger posed by the coronavirus pandemic. Imposed change will increase the likelihood that alternative explanations take hold. In a proportion of the general population there may be strong scepticism, fear of being misled, and false conspiracy theories. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of conspiracy thinking about the pandemic and test associations with reduced adherence to government guidelines. Methods A non-probability online survey with 2501 adults in England, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, income, and region. Results Approximately 50% of this population showed little evidence of conspiracy thinking, 25% showed a degree of endorsement, 15% showed a consistent pattern of endorsement, and 10% had very high levels of endorsement. Higher levels of coronavirus conspiracy thinking were associated with less adherence to all government guidelines and less willingness to take diagnostic or antibody tests or to be vaccinated. Such ideas were also associated with paranoia, general vaccination conspiracy beliefs, climate change conspiracy belief, a conspiracy mentality, and distrust in institutions and professions. Holding coronavirus conspiracy beliefs was also associated with being more likely to share opinions. Conclusions In England there is appreciable endorsement of conspiracy beliefs about coronavirus. Such ideas do not appear confined to the fringes. The conspiracy beliefs connect to other forms of mistrust and are associated with less compliance with government guidelines and greater unwillingness to take up future tests and treatment.

No abstract

Background The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme depends on mass participation: the greater the number of people vaccinated, the less risk to the population. Concise, persuasive messaging is crucial, particularly given substantial levels of vaccine hesitancy in the UK. Our aim was to test which types of written information about COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to a statement of efficacy and safety, might increase vaccine acceptance. Methods For this single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to recruit 15 000 adults in the UK, who were quota sampled to be representative. Participants were randomly assigned equally across ten information conditions stratified by level of vaccine acceptance (willing, doubtful, or strongly hesitant). The control information condition comprised the safety and effectiveness statement taken from the UK National Health Service website; the remaining conditions addressed collective benefit, personal benefit, seriousness of the pandemic, and safety concerns. After online provision of vaccination information, participants completed the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (outcome measure; score range 7–35) and the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale (mediation measure). The primary outcome was willingness to be vaccinated. Participants were analysed in the groups they were allocated. p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN37254291. Findings From Jan 19 to Feb 5, 2021, 15 014 adults were recruited. Vaccine hesitancy had reduced from 26·9% the previous year to 16·9%, so recruitment was extended to Feb 18 to recruit 3841 additional vaccine-hesitant adults. 12 463 (66·1%) participants were classified as willing, 2932 (15·6%) as doubtful, and 3460 (18·4%) as strongly hesitant (ie, report that they will avoid being vaccinated for as long as possible or will never get vaccinated). Information conditions did not alter COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in those willing or doubtful (adjusted p values >0·70). In those strongly hesitant, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reduced, in comparison to the control condition, by personal benefit information (mean difference –1·49, 95% CI –2·16 to –0·82; adjusted p=0·0015), directly addressing safety concerns about speed of development (−0·91, –1·58 to –0·23; adjusted p=0·0261), and a combination of all information (−0·86, –1·53 to –0·18; adjusted p=0·0313). In those strongly hesitant, provision of personal benefit information reduced hesitancy to a greater extent than provision of information on the collective benefit of not personally getting ill (−0·97, 95% CI –1·64 to –0·30; adjusted p=0·0165) or the collective benefit of not transmitting the virus (−1·01, –1·68 to –0·35; adjusted p=0·0150). Ethnicity and gender were found to moderate information condition outcomes. Interpretation In the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant ...

Background The Green et al., Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS) – comprising two 16-item scales assessing ideas of reference (Part A) and ideas of persecution (Part B) – was developed over a decade ago. Our aim was to conduct the first large-scale psychometric evaluation. Methods In total, 10 551 individuals provided GPTS data. Four hundred and twenty-two patients with psychosis and 805 non-clinical individuals completed GPTS Parts A and B. An additional 1743 patients with psychosis and 7581 non-clinical individuals completed GPTS Part B. Factor analysis, item response theory, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were conducted. Results The original two-factor structure of the GPTS had an inadequate model fit: Part A did not form a unidimensional scale and multiple items were locally dependant. A Revised-GPTS (R-GPTS) was formed, comprising eight-item ideas of reference and 10-item ideas of persecution subscales, which had an excellent model fit. All items in the new Reference (a = 2.09–3.67) and Persecution (a = 2.37–4.38) scales were strongly discriminative of shifts in paranoia and had high reliability across the spectrum of severity (a > 0.90). The R-GPTS score ranges are: average (Reference: 0–9; Persecution: 0–4); elevated (Reference: 10–15; Persecution: 5–10); moderately severe (Reference: 16–20; Persecution:11–17); severe (Reference: 21–24; Persecution: 18–27); and very severe (Reference: 25+; Persecution: 28+). Recommended cut-offs on the persecution scale are 11 to discriminate clinical levels of persecutory ideation and 18 for a likely persecutory delusion. Conclusions The psychometric evaluation indicated a need to improve the GPTS. The R-GPTS is a more precise measure, has excellent psychometric properties, and is recommended for future studies of paranoia.

SummaryBackgroundSleep disturbance occurs in most patients with delusions or hallucinations and should be treated as a clinical problem in its own right. However, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)—the best evidence-based treatment for insomnia—has not been tested in this patient population. We aimed to pilot procedures for a randomised trial testing CBT for sleep problems in patients with current psychotic experiences, and to provide a preliminary assessment of potential benefit.MethodsWe did this prospective, assessor-blind, randomised controlled pilot trial (Better Sleep Trial [BEST]) at two mental health centres in the UK. Patients (aged 18–65 years) with persistent distressing delusions or hallucinations in the context of insomnia and a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis were randomly assigned (1:1), via a web-based randomisation system with minimisation to balance for sex, insomnia severity, and psychotic experiences, to receive either eight sessions of CBT plus standard care (medication and contact with the local clinical team) or standard care alone. Research assessors were masked to group allocation. Assessment of outcome was done at weeks 0, 12 (post-treatment), and 24 (follow-up). The primary efficacy outcomes were insomnia assessed by the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and delusions and hallucinations assessed by the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS) at week 12. We did analysis by intention to treat, with an aim to provide confidence interval estimation of treatment effects. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number 33695128.FindingsBetween Dec 14, 2012, and May 22, 2013, and Nov 7, 2013, and Aug 26, 2014, we randomly assigned 50 patients to receive CBT plus standard care (n=24) or standard care alone (n=26). The last assessments were completed on Feb 10, 2015. 48 (96%) patients provided follow-up data. 23 (96%) patients offered CBT took up the intervention. Compared with standard care, CBT led to reductions in insomnia in the large effect size range at week 12 (adjusted mean difference 6·1, 95% CI 3·0–9·2, effect size d=1·9). By week 12, nine (41%) of 22 patients receiving CBT and one (4%) of 25 patients receiving standard care alone no longer had insomnia, with ISI scores lower than the cutoff for insomnia. The treatment effect estimation for CBT covered a range from reducing but also increasing delusions (adjusted mean difference 0·3, 95% CI −2·0 to 2·6) and hallucinations (−1·9, −6·5 to 2·7). Three patients, all in the CBT group, had five adverse events, although none were regarded as related to study treatment.InterpretationOur findings show that CBT for insomnia might be highly effective for improving sleep in patients with persistent delusions or hallucinations. A larger, suitably powered phase 3 study is now needed to provide a precise estimate of the effects of CBT for sleep problems, both on sleep and psychotic experiences.FundingResearch for Patient Benefit Programme, National Institute for Health Research.

BackgroundPersecutory delusions may be unfounded threat beliefs maintained by safety-seeking behaviours that prevent disconfirmatory evidence being successfully processed. Use of virtual reality could facilitate new learning.AimsTo test the hypothesis that enabling patients to test the threat predictions of persecutory delusions in virtual reality social environments with the dropping of safety-seeking behaviours (virtual reality cognitive therapy) would lead to greater delusion reduction than exposure alone (virtual reality exposure).MethodConviction in delusions and distress in a real-world situation were assessed in 30 patients with persecutory delusions. Patients were then randomised to virtual reality cognitive therapy or virtual reality exposure, both with 30 min in graded virtual reality social environments. Delusion conviction and real-world distress were then reassessed.ResultsIn comparison with exposure, virtual reality cognitive therapy led to large reductions in delusional conviction (reduction 22.0%, P = 0.024, Cohen's d = 1.3) and real-world distress (reduction 19.6%, P = 0.020, Cohen's d = 0.8).ConclusionCognitive therapy using virtual reality could prove highly effective in treating delusions.

We explore the implications of online social endorsement for the Covid-19 vaccination program in the United Kingdom. Vaccine hesitancy is a long-standing problem, but it has assumed great urgency due to the pandemic. By early 2021, the United Kingdom had the world’s highest Covid-19 mortality per million of population. Our survey of a nationally representative sample of UK adults ( N = 5,114) measured socio-demographics, social and political attitudes, media diet for getting news about Covid-19, and intention to use social media and personal messaging apps to encourage or discourage vaccination against Covid-19. Cluster analysis identified six distinct media diet groups: news avoiders, mainstream/official news samplers, super seekers, omnivores, the social media dependent, and the TV dependent. We assessed whether these media diets, together with key attitudes, including Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy, conspiracy mentality, and the news-finds-me attitude (meaning giving less priority to active monitoring of news and relying more on one’s online networks of friends for information), predict the intention to encourage or discourage vaccination. Overall, super-seeker and omnivorous media diets are more likely than other media diets to be associated with the online encouragement of vaccination. Combinations of (a) news avoidance and high levels of the news-finds-me attitude and (b) social media dependence and high levels of conspiracy mentality are most likely to be associated with online discouragement of vaccination. In the direct statistical model, a TV-dependent media diet is more likely to be associated with online discouragement of vaccination, but the moderation model shows that a TV-dependent diet most strongly attenuates the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and discouraging vaccination. Our findings support public health communication based on four main methods. First, direct contact, through the post, workplace, or community structures, and through phone counseling via local health services, could reach the news avoiders. Second, TV public information advertisements should point to authoritative information sources, such as National Health Service (NHS) and other public health websites, which should then feature clear and simple ways for people to share material among their online social networks. Third, informative social media campaigns will provide super seekers with good resources to share, while also encouraging the social media dependent to browse away from social media platforms and visit reliable and authoritative online sources. Fourth, social media companies should expand and intensify their removal of vaccine disinformation and anti-vax accounts, and such efforts should be monitored by well-resourced, independent organizations.