“Using behavioral insights to inform the COVID-19 vaccine response in Kosovo[1]: Population perceptions and interventions”

Objective: Understand population perceptions in Kosovo[1] regarding COVID-19 vaccination to inform the pandemic response. Methods: Five rounds of a cross-sectional survey in representative samples of adults during 2020–2021. Analysis includes descriptive statistics, hierarchical cluster analysis, segmentation and logistic regressions. Results: Self-reported intention to vaccinate increased after the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines in Kosovo.[1] In less than one year, vaccination intentions increased from 36% to 66% of those unvaccinated. Predictors for vaccine intentions included gender, age, trust in health authorities. Segmentation analysis identified population segments that had high vaccine nintentions but low uptake, informing messages and campaign initiatives designed to translate intentions into behavior. Conclusion: Identifying people's perceptions and behavior is essential to support evidence-based policy making, especially during outbreak response. Innovation: BI is an innovative focus of research in Kosovo [1] where little BI data had been collected prior, and provided a unique understanding of population views, attitudes and behaviors related to COVID-19. These findings were not only essential for an evidence-based pandemic response but also laid the foundation for future broad application of BI to inform interventions that seek to enable, support and promote health-related behaviurs in Kosovo[1

Crowdsourcing interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines

Background: COVID-19 booster vaccine uptake rates are behind the rate of primary vaccination in many countries. Governments and non-governmental institutions rely on a range of interventions aiming to increase booster uptake. Yet, little is known how experts and the general public evaluate these interventions. Methods: We applied a novel crowdsourcing approach to provide rapid insights on the most promising interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines. In the first phase (December 2021), international experts (n = 78 from 17 countries) proposed 46 unique interventions. To reduce noise and potential bias, in the second phase (January 2022), experts (n = 307 from 34 countries) and representative general population samples from the UK (n = 299) and the US (n = 300) rated the proposed interventions on several evaluation criteria, including effectiveness and acceptability, on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Findings: Sanctions were evaluated as potentially most effective but least accepted. Evaluations by expert and general population samples were considerably aligned. Interventions that received the most positive evaluations regarding both effectiveness and acceptability across evaluation groups were: a day off work after getting vaccinated, financial incentives, tax benefits, promotional campaigns, and mobile vaccination teams. Interpretation: The results provide useful insights to help governmental and non-governmental institutions in their decisions about which interventions to implement. Additionally, the applied crowdsourcing method may be used in future studies to retrieve rapid insights on the comparative evaluation of (health) policies

Satisfaction with Health Care Services in the Adult Population of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background and Objectives: Patient satisfaction with health care can influence health care-seeking behavior in relation to both minor or major health problems or influence communication and compliance with medical advice, which is especially important in emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, it is important to continually monitor patient satisfaction with provided care and their dynamics. The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with health care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the adult population of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FB&H) and compare it with levels of satisfaction in the same population before the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: A representative, population-based survey was implemented in the adult population of the FB&H using the EUROPEP instrument, which measures satisfaction with health care using 23 items. The sample included 740 respondents who were 18 years or older residing in the FB&H and was implemented in December 2020. All data were collected using a system of online panels. The survey questions targeted the nine months from the beginning of the pandemic to the time of data collection, i.e., the period of March to December 2020. Results: The mean composite satisfaction score across all 23 items of the EUROPEP tool was 3.2 points in all age groups; the ceiling effect was 22% for the youngest respondents (18–34 years old), 23% for 35–54 years old, and 26% for the oldest group (55+), showing increasing satisfaction by age. The overall composite score for both females and males was 3.2. The ceiling effect was higher in those with chronic disease (29% vs. 23% in those without chronic disease). The composite mean score for respondents residing in rural vs. urban areas was 3.2 with a ceiling effect of 22% in rural and 24% in urban residents. When comparing mean composite scores surveyed at various points in time in the FB&H, it was found that the score increased from 3.3 to 3.5 between 2011 and 2017 and dropped again to 3.3 in this study. Despite these observations in the overall trends of satisfaction scores, we note that no statistically significant differences were observed between most of the single-item scores in the stratified analysis, pointing to the relative uniformity of satisfaction among the analyzed population subgroups. Conclusions: The rate of satisfaction with health care services in the FB&H was lower during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to 2011 and 2017. Furthermore, while an increasing trend in satisfaction with health care was observed in the FB&H during the years prior to 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to the reversal of this trend. It is important to further monitor the dynamics of patient satisfaction with health care, which could serve as a basis for planning, delivering, and maintaining quality services during the COVID-19 pandemic and other emergencies

Psychological well‐being during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Italy assessed in a four‐waves survey

COVID‐19 pandemic had a negative impact on the mental health and well‐being (WB) of citizens. This cross‐sectional study included 4 waves of data collection aimed at identifying profiles of individuals with different levels of WB. The study included a representative stratified sample of 10,013 respondents in Italy. The WHO 5-item well-being scale (WHO‐5) was used for the assessment of WB. Different supervised machine learning approaches (multinomial logistic regression, partial least‐ square discriminant analysis—PLS‐DA—, classification tree—CT—) were applied to identify individual characteristics with different WB scores, first in waves 1–2 and, subsequently, in waves 3 and 4. Forty‐ one percent of participants reported “Good WB”, 30% “Poor WB”, and 28% “Depression”. Findings carried out using multinomial logistic regression show that Resilience was the most important variable able for discriminating the WB across all waves. Through the PLS‐DA, Increased Unhealthy Behaviours proved to be the more important feature in the first two waves, while Financial Situation gained most relevance in the last two. COVID-19 Perceived Risk was relevant, but less than the other variables, across all waves. Interestingly, using the CT we were able to establish a cut‐off for Resilience (equal to 4.5) that discriminated good WB with a probability of 65% in wave 4. Concluding, we found that COVID‐19 had negative implications for WB. Governments should support evidence‐based strategies considering factors that influence WB (i.e., Resilience, Perceived Risk, Healthy Behaviours, and Financial Situation)

Ten considerations for effectively managing the COVID-19 transition

Governments around the world have implemented measures to manage the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While the majority of these measures are proving effective, they have a high social and economic cost, and response strategies are being adjusted. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that communities should have a voice, be informed and engaged, and participate in this transition phase. We propose ten considerations to support this principle: (1) implement a phased approach to a ‘new normal’; (2) balance individual rights with the social good; (3) prioritise people at highest risk of negative consequences; (4) provide special support for healthcare workers and care staff; (5) build, strengthen and maintain trust; (6) enlist existing social norms and foster healthy new norms; (7) increase resilience and self-efficacy; (8) use clear and positive language; (9) anticipate and manage misinformation; and (10) engage with media outlets. The transition phase should also be informed by real-time data according to which governmental responses should be updated