Sue Carr

Bio: Sue Carr is an academic researcher from General Medical Council. The author has contributed to research in topics: Ethnic group & Public health. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 7 publications receiving 38 citations. Previous affiliations of Sue Carr include University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust & Leicester Royal Infirmary.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in United Kingdom healthcare workers: Results from the UK-REACH prospective nationwide cohort study.

Abstract: Background In most countries, healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a priority group for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to their elevated risk of COVID-19 and potential contribution to nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Concerns have been raised that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant (defined by the World Health Organisation as refusing or delaying a vaccination) than those of White ethnicity, but there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy and its predictors in UK HCWs. Methods Nationwide prospective cohort study and qualitative study in a multi-ethnic cohort of clinical and non-clinical UK HCWs. We analysed ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy adjusting for demographics, vaccine trust, and perceived risk of COVID-19. We explored reasons for hesitancy in qualitative data using a framework analysis. Findings 11,584 HCWs were included in the cohort analysis. 23% (2704) reported vaccine hesitancy. Compared to White British HCWs (21.3% hesitant), HCWs from Black Caribbean (54.2%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (38.1%), Black African (34.4%), Chinese (33.1%), Pakistani (30.4%), and White Other (28.7%) ethnic groups were significantly more likely to be hesitant. In adjusted analysis, Black Caribbean (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 - 5.37), Black African (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.49 - 2.82), White Other ethnic groups (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84) were significantly more likely to be hesitant. Other independent predictors of hesitancy were younger age, female sex, higher score on a COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs scale, lower trust in employer, lack of influenza vaccine uptake in the previous season, previous COVID-19, and pregnancy. Qualitative data from 99 participants identified the following contributors to hesitancy: lack of trust in government and employers, safety concerns due to the speed of vaccine development, lack of ethnic diversity in vaccine studies, and confusing and conflicting information. Participants felt uptake in ethnic minority communities might be improved through inclusive communication, involving HCWs in the vaccine rollout, and promoting vaccination through trusted networks. Interpretation Despite increased risk of COVID-19, HCWs from some ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant than their White British colleagues. Strategies to build trust and dispel myths surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in these communities are urgently required. Emphasis should be placed on the safety and benefit of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy and in those with previous COVID-19. Public health communications should be inclusive, non-stigmatising and utilise trusted networks. Funding UKRI-MRC and NIHR.

The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH): protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study of healthcare and ancillary workers in UK healthcare settings.

Abstract: Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality and devastated economies globally. Among groups at increased risk are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related outcomes. To date, there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK HCWs or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation, and adjusted for confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers). Methods and analysis A baseline questionnaire will be administered to a national cohort of UK HCWs and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators, with follow-up questionnaires administered at 4 and 8 months. With consent, questionnaire data will be linked to health records with 25-year follow-up. Univariate associations between ethnicity and clinical COVID-19 outcomes, physical and mental health, and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested. Multivariable analyses will test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables. We will model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings. Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress about questions on sensitive topics by clearly participant information that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and there is no obligation to answer these or any other questions, and by providing support organisation links. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers submitted to pre-print servers and peer reviewed journals. Trial registration number ISRCTN11811602; Pre-results.

education session to improve self- management of blood pressure in people with chronic kidney disease: an open randomised pilot trial

Abstract: Objectives: We aimed to test, at pilot level, a structured group educational intervention to improve self-management of blood pressure in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The current paper explores patient acceptability of the intervention. Design: This was an open randomised pilot trial. Participants were randomly assigned to either: < A control group (n¼41) receiving standard clinical management of hypertension. < An intervention group (n¼40) receiving standard clinical care plus the educational intervention. Setting: Renal outpatient clinics at a single study centre. Participants: Patients with early CKD and hypertension were identified and approached for recruitment.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in United Kingdom healthcare workers: Results from the UK-REACH prospective nationwide cohort study

Abstract: Background In most countries, healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a priority group for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to their elevated risk of COVID-19 and potential contribution to nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Concerns have been raised that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant (defined by the World Health Organisation as refusing or delaying a vaccination) than those of White ethnicity, but there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy and its predictors in UK HCWs. Methods Nationwide prospective cohort study and qualitative study in a multi-ethnic cohort of clinical and non-clinical UK HCWs. We analysed ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy adjusting for demographics, vaccine trust, and perceived risk of COVID-19. We explored reasons for hesitancy in qualitative data using a framework analysis. Findings 11,584 HCWs were included in the cohort analysis. 23% (2704) reported vaccine hesitancy. Compared to White British HCWs (21.3% hesitant), HCWs from Black Caribbean (54.2%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (38.1%), Black African (34.4%), Chinese (33.1%), Pakistani (30.4%), and White Other (28.7%) ethnic groups were significantly more likely to be hesitant. In adjusted analysis, Black Caribbean (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 - 5.37), Black African (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.49 - 2.82), White Other ethnic groups (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84) were significantly more likely to be hesitant. Other independent predictors of hesitancy were younger age, female sex, higher score on a COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs scale, lower trust in employer, lack of influenza vaccine uptake in the previous season, previous COVID-19, and pregnancy. Qualitative data from 99 participants identified the following contributors to hesitancy: lack of trust in government and employers, safety concerns due to the speed of vaccine development, lack of ethnic diversity in vaccine studies, and confusing and conflicting information. Participants felt uptake in ethnic minority communities might be improved through inclusive communication, involving HCWs in the vaccine rollout, and promoting vaccination through trusted networks. Interpretation Despite increased risk of COVID-19, HCWs from some ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant than their White British colleagues. Strategies to build trust and dispel myths surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in these communities are urgently required. Public health communications should be inclusive, non-stigmatising and utilise trusted networks. Funding MRC-UK Research and Innovation (MR/V027549/1), the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Biomedical Research Centres and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands.

Access to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: results from a nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH)

Abstract: ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate personal protective equipment (aPPE) for healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) during the first UK national COVID-19 lockdown (March 2020) and at the time of questionnaire response (December 2020 - February 2021). DesignTwo cross sectional analyses using data from a questionnaire-based cohort study. SettingNationwide questionnaire from 4th December 2020 to 28th February 2021. ParticipantsA representative sample of HCWs or ancillary workers in a UK healthcare setting aged 16 or over, registered with one of seven main UK healthcare regulatory bodies. Main outcome measureBinary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). Results10,508 HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 3702 (35.2%) of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 6806 (83.9%) reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. After adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector, work region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs (per decade increase in age: aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.26, p<0.001) and those working in Intensive Care Units (1.61, 1.38 - 1.89, p<0.001) were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Those from Asian ethnic groups compared to White (0.77, 0.67-0.89, p<0.001), those in allied health professional (AHPs) and dental roles (vs those in medical roles; AHPs: 0.77, 0.68 - 0.87, p<0.001; dental: 0.63, 0.49-0.81, p<0.001), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none ([≥]21 patients 0.74, 0.61-0.90, p=0.003) were less likely to report aPPE at all times in the primary analysis. aPPE at all times was also not uniform across UK regions (reported access being better in South West and North East England than London). Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times (2.18, 1.97-2.40, p<0.001). With the exception of occupation, these factors were also significantly associated with aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. ConclusionsWe found that only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the period of the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key sociodemographic and occupational determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, the majority of which have persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important public health implications for HCWs, particularly as cases of infection and long-COVID continue to rise in the UK. Trial registrationISRCTN 11811602 What is already known on this topicAccess to personal protective equipment (PPE) is crucial to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from infection. Limited data exist concerning the prevalence of, and factors relating to, PPE access for HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK) during the COVID-19 pandemic. What this study addsOnly a third of HCWs reported having access to appropriate PPE all of the time during the first UK national lockdown. Older HCWs, those working in Intensive Care Units and those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, were more likely to report access to adequate PPE. Those from Asian ethnic groups (compared to White ethnic groups) and those who saw a high number of COVID-19 were less likely to report access to adequate PPE. Our findings have important implications for the mental and physical health of HCWs working during the pandemic in the UK.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in United Kingdom healthcare workers: Results from the UK-REACH prospective nationwide cohort study.

Abstract: Background In most countries, healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a priority group for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to their elevated risk of COVID-19 and potential contribution to nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Concerns have been raised that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant (defined by the World Health Organisation as refusing or delaying a vaccination) than those of White ethnicity, but there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy and its predictors in UK HCWs. Methods Nationwide prospective cohort study and qualitative study in a multi-ethnic cohort of clinical and non-clinical UK HCWs. We analysed ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy adjusting for demographics, vaccine trust, and perceived risk of COVID-19. We explored reasons for hesitancy in qualitative data using a framework analysis. Findings 11,584 HCWs were included in the cohort analysis. 23% (2704) reported vaccine hesitancy. Compared to White British HCWs (21.3% hesitant), HCWs from Black Caribbean (54.2%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (38.1%), Black African (34.4%), Chinese (33.1%), Pakistani (30.4%), and White Other (28.7%) ethnic groups were significantly more likely to be hesitant. In adjusted analysis, Black Caribbean (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 - 5.37), Black African (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.49 - 2.82), White Other ethnic groups (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84) were significantly more likely to be hesitant. Other independent predictors of hesitancy were younger age, female sex, higher score on a COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs scale, lower trust in employer, lack of influenza vaccine uptake in the previous season, previous COVID-19, and pregnancy. Qualitative data from 99 participants identified the following contributors to hesitancy: lack of trust in government and employers, safety concerns due to the speed of vaccine development, lack of ethnic diversity in vaccine studies, and confusing and conflicting information. Participants felt uptake in ethnic minority communities might be improved through inclusive communication, involving HCWs in the vaccine rollout, and promoting vaccination through trusted networks. Interpretation Despite increased risk of COVID-19, HCWs from some ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant than their White British colleagues. Strategies to build trust and dispel myths surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in these communities are urgently required. Emphasis should be placed on the safety and benefit of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy and in those with previous COVID-19. Public health communications should be inclusive, non-stigmatising and utilise trusted networks. Funding UKRI-MRC and NIHR.

Self-management interventions for adults with chronic kidney disease: a scoping review.

Abstract: Objective To systematically identify and describe self-management interventions for adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Setting Community-based. Participants Adults with CKD stages 1–5 (not requiring kidney replacement therapy). Interventions Self-management strategies for adults with CKD. Primary and secondary outcome measures Using a scoping review, electronic databases and grey literature were searched in October 2016 to identify self-management interventions for adults with CKD stages 1–5 (not requiring kidney replacement therapy). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, qualitative and mixed method studies were included and study selection and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Outcomes included behaviours, cognitions, physiological measures, symptoms, health status and healthcare. Results Fifty studies (19 RCTs, 7 quasi-experimental, 5 observational, 13 pre-post intervention, 1 mixed method and 5 qualitative) reporting 45 interventions were included. The most common intervention topic was diet/nutrition and interventions were regularly delivered face to face. Interventions were administered by a variety of providers, with nursing professionals the most common health professional group. Cognitions (ie, changes in general CKD knowledge, perceived self-management and motivation) were the most frequently reported outcome domain that showed improvement. Less than 1% of the interventions were co-developed with patients and 20% were based on a theory or framework. Conclusions There was a wide range of self-management interventions with considerable variability in outcomes for adults with CKD. Major gaps in the literature include lack of patient engagement in the design of the interventions, with the majority of interventions not applying a behavioural change theory to inform their development. This work highlights the need to involve patients to co-developed and evaluate a self-management intervention based on sound theories and clinical evidence.

Self-management interventions for chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Self-management intervention aims to facilitate an individual’s ability to make lifestyle changes. The effectiveness of this intervention in non-dialysis patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is limited. In this study, we applied a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether self-management intervention improves renoprotection for non-dialysis chronic kidney disease. We conducted a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials addressing our objective. We searched for studies up to May 12, 2018. Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and extracted characteristics and outcomes among patients with CKD within the intervention phase for each trial. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity. We identified 19 studies with a total of 2540 CKD patients and a mean follow-up of 13.44 months. Compared with usual care, self-management intervention did not show a significant difference for risk of all-cause mortality (5 studies, 1662 participants; RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.86; I2 = 0%), risk of dialysis (5 studies, 1565 participants; RR 1.35; 95% CI 0.84 to 2.19; I2 = 0%), or change in eGFR (8 studies, 1315 participants; SMD -0.01; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21; I2 = 64%). Moreover, self-management interventions were associated with a lower 24 h urinary protein excretion (4 studies, 905 participants; MD − 0.12 g/24 h; 95% CI -0.21 to − 0.02; I2 = 3%), a lower blood pressure level (SBP: 7 studies, 1201 participants; MD − 5.68 mmHg; 95%CI − 9.68 to − 1.67; I2 = 60%; DBP: 7 studies, 1201 participants; MD − 2.64 mmHg, 95% CI -3.78 to − 1.50; I2 = 0%), a lower C-reactive Protein (CRP) level (3 studies, 123 participants; SMD -2.8; 95% CI -2.90 to − 2.70; I2 = 0%) and a longer distance on the 6-min walk (3 studies, 277 participants; SMD 0.70; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.94; I2 = 0%) when compared with the control group. We observed that self-management intervention was beneficial for urine protein decline, blood pressure level, exercise capacity and CRP level, compared with the standard treatment, during a follow-up of 13.44 months in patients with CKD non-dialysis. However, it did not provide additional benefits for renal outcomes and all-cause mortality.