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.

Seventy-four children from 21 schools referred because of teacher-perceived learning difficulties and prescreened for sensory integration (SI) deficits were given tests of SI, reading, vocabulary, perceptuo-motor function and motor development, and their teachers rated their classroom behaviour. The results showed that the children suffered primarily from attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity, and from mild deficits of SI. They were then divided into two groups matched approximately for sex, school and degree of SI deficits. One group received no treatment while the other was given about 13 weekly SI sessions, each of 1 h duration. All children were then reassessed on the same set of measures. There were significant improvements with time in both treated and untreated groups on most measures except classroom behaviour. Only one measure showed a treatment effect, though this one was most reflective of SI theory.

The aim of this narrative review was to explore the conditions under which enforcement likely is, or is not, an effective strategy to increase adherence to recommended protective behaviours during COVID-19. Relevant search terms were entered into four key databases (Google, Google Scholar, medXriv, and psyArXiv) to identify both academic and non-academic papers relating to the use of enforcement. Primary research, reviews, blogs, newspaper reports, and theoretical descriptions were included. This review suggests that enforcement is less effective when: it is applied inconsistently; rules are ambiguous; and behaviours are unobservable. Providing food and financial support, creating social norms, and increasing trust are more effective in addressing specific barriers and fostering voluntary adherence. Where enforcement forms part of the strategy for policing COVID-19 regulations, rules must be clear and local responders must be given time and opportunity to plan their response as new rules are implemented. Due to the narrative nature of the review, and the rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, some evidence may have been inadvertently excluded. Findings inform an understanding of the impact of the public narrative of enforcement on adherence and facilitate the development of recommendations for increasing adherence to protective behaviours during COVID-19. Given the importance of public adherence, these recommendations are not only useful in the context of COVID-19 but also for future public health emergencies. This narrative review is the first to explore the circumstances under which enforcement can increase or reduce adherence with COVID-19 guidelines, generating recommendations for improved public adherence.

Objectives: We examined whether providing different types of information about Long COVID would affect expectations about the illness. Design: A 2 (Illness description: Long COVID vs ongoing COVID-19 recovery) x 2 (Illness uncertainty: uncertainty emphasised vs uncertainty not emphasised) x 2 (Efficacy of support: enhanced support vs basic support) between-subjects randomised online experimental study. Setting: The online platform Prolific, collected in October 2021. Participants: A representative sample of 1110 members of the public in the UK. Interventions: Participants were presented with a scenario describing a positive COVID-19 test result and then presented with one of eight scenarios describing a Long COVID diagnosis. Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Various outcome measures relating to illness expectations were captured including: symptom severity, symptom duration, quality of life, personal control, treatment control and illness coherence. Results: We ran a series of 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVAs on the outcome variables. We found a main effect of illness description: individuals reported longer symptom duration and less illness coherence when the illness was described as Long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery). There was a main effect of illness uncertainty: when uncertainty was emphasised, participants reported longer expected symptom duration, less treatment control, and less illness coherence than when uncertainty was not emphasised. There was also a main effect of efficacy of support: participants reported higher personal control and higher treatment control when support was enhanced (compared to basic support). We also found an interaction between illness description and efficacy of support: when support was enhanced, participants reported less illness coherence for Long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery). Conclusions: Communications around Long COVID should not emphasise symptom uncertainty and should provide people with information on how they can facilitate their recovery and where they can access additional support. The findings also suggest that use of the term ongoing COVID-19 recovery, where possible, may reduce negative expectations associated with the illness.

Objective: We examined whether varying information about long COVID would affect expectations about the illness. Method: In October 2021, we conducted a 2 (Illness Description: long COVID vs. ongoing COVID-19 recovery) 3 2 (Symptom Uncertainty: uncertainty emphasized vs. not emphasized) 3 2 (Efficacy of Support: enhanced vs. basic support) between-subjects randomized online experimental study. Participants (N = 1,110) were presented with a scenario describing a positive COVID-19 test result, followed by one of eight scenarios describing a long COVID diagnosis and then completed outcome measures of illness expectations including: symptom severity, symptom duration, quality of life, personal control, treatment control, and illness coherence. Results: We ran a series of 2 3 2 3 2 ANOVAs on the outcome variables. We found a main effect of illness description: individuals reported longer symptom duration and less illness coherence when the illness was described as long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery). There was a main effect of symptom uncertainty: when uncertainty was emphasized, participants reported longer expected symptom duration (p , .001), less treatment control (p = .031), and less illness coherence (p , .001) than when uncertainty was not emphasized. There was a main effect of efficacy of support: participants reported higher personal control (p = .004) and higher treatment control (p = .037) when support was enhanced (compared to basic support). Conclusions: Communications around long COVID should avoid emphasizing symptom uncertainty

Purpose: To explore the conditions under which enforcement likely is, or is not, an effective strategy to increase adherence to recommended protective behaviours during COVID-19. Design/Methodology/Approach: Relevant search terms were entered into three key databases (Google Scholar, medXriv, psyArXiv) to identify both peer-reviewed and pre-publication articles that reported empirical data relating to the impact of enforcement on adherence with recommended public health behaviours. Findings: Enforcement is less effective when: it is applied inconsistently; rules are ambiguous; behaviours are unobservable. Providing food and financial support, creating social norms and increasing trust are more effective in addressing specific barriers and fostering voluntary adherence. Where enforcement forms part of the strategy for policing COVID-19 regulations, rules must be clear and local responders must be given time and opportunity to plan their response as new rules are implemented. Research limitations/implications: This narrative review was limited to papers published in English and available either via the databases searched, or via reference searching; some relevant studies may therefore not have been identified. Practical implications: Findings inform an understanding of the impact of enforcement on adherence and facilitate the development of recommendations for increasing adherence to protective behaviours during COVID-19. Given the importance of public adherence, these recommendations are not only useful in the context of COVID-19 but also for future public health emergencies. Originality/value: This narrative review is the first to explore the circumstances under which enforcement can increase or reduce adherence with COVID-19 guidelines, generating recommendations for improved public adherence.