A return collected from the Independent Sector (IS) on behalf of NHS England which collects data on activity carried out in the IS to support the NHS COVID-19 response.

Our statistical practice is regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR). The OSR sets the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics that all producers of official statistics should adhere to.

Provisional monthly uptake data for seasonal influenza and COVID-19 vaccines for frontline HCWs working in trusts, Independent Sector Healthcare Providers (ISHCPs), and GP practices in England.

Data is presented at national, NHS regional and individual trust levels.

View the pre-release access list for these reports.

Vaccinations in London Between 8 December 2020 and 15 September 2021 5,838,305 1st doses and 5,232,885 2nd doses have been administered to London residents. Differences in vaccine roll out between London and the Rest of England London Rest of England Priority Group Vaccinations given Percentage vaccinated Vaccinations given Percentage vaccinated Group 1 Older Adult Care Home Residents 21,883 95% 275,964 96% Older Adult Care Home Staff 29,405 85% 381,637 88% Group 2 80+ years 251,021 83% 2,368,284 93% Health Care Worker 174,944 99% 1,139,243 100%* Group 3 75 - 79 years 177,665 90% 1,796,408 99% Group 4 70 - 74 years 252,609 90% 2,454,381 97% Clinically Extremely Vulnerable 278,967 88% 1,850,485 95% Group 5 65 - 69 years 285,768 90% 2,381,250 97% Group 6 At Risk or Carer (Under 65) 983,379 78% 6,093,082 88% Younger Adult Care Home Residents 3,822 92% 30,321 93% Group 7 60 - 64 years 373,327 92% 2,748,412 98% Group 8 55 - 59 years 465,276 91% 3,152,412 97% Group 9 50 - 54 years 510,132 90% 3,141,219 95% Data as at 15 September 2021 for age based groups and as at 12 September 2021 for non-age based groups * The number who have received their first dose exceeds the latest official estimate of the population for this group There is considerable uncertainty in the population denominators used to calculate the percentage vaccinated. Comparing implied vaccination rates for multiple sources of denominators provides some indication of uncertainty in the true values. Confidence is higher where the results from multiple sources agree more closely. Because the denominator sources are not fully independent of one another, users should interpret the range of values across sources as indicating the minimum range of uncertainty in the true value. The following datasets can be used to estimate vaccine uptake by age group for London: ONS 2020 mid-year estimates (MYE). This is the population estimate used for age groups throughout the rest of the analysis. Number of people ages 18 and over on the National Immunisation Management Service (NIMS) ONS Public Health Data Asset (PHDA) dataset. This is a linked dataset combining the 2011 Census, the General Practice Extraction Service (GPES) data for pandemic planning and research and the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). This data covers a subset of the population. Vaccine roll out in London by Ethnic Group Understanding how vaccine uptake varies across different ethnic groups in London is complicated by two issues: Ethnicity information for recipients is unavailable for a very large number of the vaccinations that have been delivered. As a result, estimates of vaccine uptake by ethnic group are highly sensitive to the assumptions about and treatment of the Unknown group in calculations of rates. For vaccinations given to people aged 50 and over in London nearly 10% do not have ethnicity information available, The accuracy of available population denominators by ethnic group is limited. Because ethnicity information is not captured in official estimates of births, deaths, and migration, the available population denominators typically rely on projecting forward patterns captured in the 2011 Census. Subsequent changes to these patterns, particularly with respect to international migration, leads to increasing uncertainty in the accuracy of denominators sources as we move further away from 2011. Comparing estimated population sizes and implied vaccination rates for multiple sources of denominators provides some indication of uncertainty in the true values. Confidence is higher where the results from multiple sources agree more closely. Because the denominator sources are not fully independent of one another, users should interpret the range of values across sources as indicating the minimum range of uncertainty in the true value. The following population estimates are available by Ethnic group for London:

Based on a comparison of coronavirus deaths in 210 countries relative to their population, Peru had the most losses to COVID-19 up until July 13, 2022. As of the same date, the virus had infected over 557.8 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had totaled more than 6.3 million. Note, however, that COVID-19 test rates can vary per country. Additionally, big differences show up between countries when combining the number of deaths against confirmed COVID-19 cases. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

The difficulties of death figures

This table aims to provide a complete picture on the topic, but it very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic. On April 16, for example, the Chinese city of Wuhan added a 50 percent increase in their death figures to account for community deaths. These deaths occurred outside of hospitals and went unaccounted for so far. The state of New York did something similar two days before, revising their figures with 3,700 new deaths as they started to include “assumed” coronavirus victims. The United Kingdom started counting deaths in care homes and private households on April 29, adjusting their number with about 5,000 new deaths (which were corrected lowered again by the same amount on August 18). This makes an already difficult comparison even more difficult. Belgium, for example, counts suspected coronavirus deaths in their figures, whereas other countries have not done that (yet). This means two things. First, it could have a big impact on both current as well as future figures. On April 16 already, UK health experts stated that if their numbers were corrected for community deaths like in Wuhan, the UK number would change from 205 to “above 300”. This is exactly what happened two weeks later. Second, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which countries already have “revised” numbers (like Belgium, Wuhan or New York) and which ones do not. One work-around could be to look at (freely accessible) timelines that track the reported daily increase of deaths in certain countries. Several of these are available on our platform, such as for Belgium, Italy and Sweden. A sudden large increase might be an indicator that the domestic sources changed their methodology.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

This dataset pertains to a research project investigating the social, cultural, and economic consequences of COVID19 on independent arts workers, specifically in the theatre sector, across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The project recognised the unique vulnerability of this workforce in dealing with the impact of COVID19. Their workplaces closed overnight and their sector transformed as theatres moved to digital delivery, and their employment status (freelance) made them ineligible for the UK government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. The motivation of the project was to understand: the employment experiences of this workforce during the first 18 months of the pandemic; how the pandemic affected their planning for the future; how the pandemic changed their creative practices and skills; what impact government and sectoral policy had on the workforce; and to find strategies for government and industry to support this precarious workforce.

This data collection includes survey responses (n=397) to an online survey which ran from 23/11/2020 to 19/03/2021, and a database of policy events covering the period from the onset of the pandemic until 27/5/2022 (n=1353). This collection contains the survey data. The survey was run through the JISC surveys platform. It had 34 questions collecting a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data. Freeform text responses were alternated with multiple choice, multi-option and Likert scale. The survey captured data on theatre freelancers employment, emotional, and cultural experiences, the region(s) and setting(s) where they worked, and their age, gender identity, race, occupation(s).COVID-19 threatens the performing arts; closures of theatres and outlawing of public gatherings have proven financially devastating to the industry across the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world. The pandemic has sparked a wide range of industry-led strategies designed to alleviate financial consequences and improve audience capture amidst social distancing. COVID-19 has affected all levels of the sector but poses an existential threat to freelancers--Independent Arts Workers (IAWs)--who make up 60% of industry workforce in the UK (EU Labour Force Survey 2017). The crisis has put a spotlight on the vulnerable working conditions, economic sustainability, mental wellbeing, and community support networks of IAWs. IAWs are often overlooked by the industry and researchers, however it is their very precarity that makes them pioneers of adaptability responsible for key innovation within the sector. IAWs may prove essential for the industry's regrowth post-COVID-19. An investigation is necessary into the impact of COVID-19 on IAWs and the wide-ranging creative solutions developing within the industry to overcome them.

There has been increasing pressure to gather 'robust, real-time data' to investigate the financial, cultural, and social potential long-term consequences of COVID-19 on the UK theatre industry. The impact of the pandemic on IAWs is particularly complex and wide-ranging. A TRG Arts survey stated that 60% of IAWs predict their income will 'more than halve in 2020' while 50% have had 100% of their work cancelled. Industry researchers from TRG Arts and Theatres Trust have launched investigations examining the financial impact of COVID-19 on commercial venues and National Portfolio Organisations, but there has been insufficient research into the consequences for IAWs (eg. actors, directors, producers, writers, theatre makers, technicians) and the smaller SMEs beyond income loss and project cancellation data. In May 2020, Vicky Featherstone of the Royal Court Theatre, stated the importance of support for the 'massive freelance and self-employed workforce' she believed has been 'taken for granted' by the industry. Our study fills this gap by capturing and analysing not only the economic impact, but the social and cultural transformations caused by COVID-19 by and for IAWs. We will compare regional responses across England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland as well as variations across racial and socio-economic groups. Our aims are to document and investigate the impact of COVID-19 on IAWs, identify inequalities in the sector, investigate changes in the type of work produced post-COVID-19, and help develop strategies for how the sector can move forward from this crisis. We will investigate connections between the financial consequences of COVID-19 and creative strategies for industry survival including social support networks, communication initiatives between arts venues and IAWs, and the development of mixed-media work in the wake of the pandemic.

IntroductionEvidence for the effect of neighbourhood food environment (NFE) exposures on diet in the UK is mixed, potentially due to exposure misclassification. This study used the first national COVID-19 lockdown in England as an opportunity to isolate the independent effects of the NFE exposure on food and drink purchasing, and assessed whether these varied by region.MethodsTransaction-level purchasing data for food and drink items for at-home (1,221 households) and out-of-home consumption (171 individuals) were available from the GB Kantar Fast Moving Consumer Goods Panel for London and the North of England. The study period included 23rd March to 10th May 2020 (‘lockdown’), and the same period in 2019 for comparison. NFE exposures included food outlet density and proximity, and NFE composition within a 1 km network buffer around the home. Associations were estimated for both years separately, adjusted for individual and household characteristics, population density and area deprivation. Interaction terms between region and exposures were explored.ResultsThere were no consistent patterns of association between NFE exposures and food and drink purchasing in either time period. In 2019, there was some evidence for a 1.4% decrease in energy purchased from ultra-processed foods for each additional 500 m in the distance to the nearest OOH outlet (IR 0.986, 95% CI 0.977 to 0.995, p = 0.020). In 2020, there was some evidence for a 1.8% reduction in total take-home energy for each additional chain supermarket per km2 in the neighbourhood (IR 0.982, 95% CI 0.969, 0.995, p = 0.045). Region-specific effects were observed in 2019 only.DiscussionFindings suggest that the differences in exposure to the NFE may not explain differences in the patterns or healthiness of grocery purchasing. Observed pre-pandemic region-specific effects allude to the importance of geographical context when designing research and policy. Future research may assess associations for those who relied on their NFE during lockdown.

This dataset contains 20 interviews conducted with UK emergency response practitioners during the Covid-19 response in 2020 and 2021. The purpose of the interviews was to understand how ResilienceDirect - a multi-agency digital collaboration platform - was used during the Covid-19 response.The proposed research will explore and enhance how the ResilienceDirect (RD) digital collaboration platform is used by multi-agency Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) to remotely plan and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The research aims to produce the first independent evidence base for LRF practitioners, national policymakers, and scholars, to understand how RD is being used to facilitate LRF collaboration and to then rapidly circulate best practices through RD to enhance the UK’s planning and response to COVID-19.

The national scope of the COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity to compare how RD is being used to enable collaboration across different LRFs. This analysis will: a) diagnose sub-optimal uses of RD within LRFs; and b) help identify best practice solutions for joint working on RD within, and between, LRFs. These findings will be identified and communicated to all UK multi-agency emergency forms on a monthly basis via the ‘Learning and Development’ section on the RD platform.

This research will provide timely, cyclical, feedback on the effective use of RD to support multi-agency collaboration. This project is designed to deliver immediate impact to improve the UK’s response to COVID-19 as well as critical insights into the role of technology in facilitating emergency collaborations that will benefit future responses.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global public health crisis that continues to exert immense pressure on healthcare and related professional staff and services. The impact on staff wellbeing is likely to be influenced by a combination of modifiable and non-modifiable factors.ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the self-reported wellbeing, resilience, and job satisfaction of National Health Service (NHS) and university staff working in the field of healthcare and medical research.MethodsWe conducted a cross sectional survey of NHS and UK university staff throughout the COVID-19 pandemic between May-November 2020. The anonymous and voluntary survey was disseminated through social media platforms, and via e-mail to members of professional and medical bodies. The data was analyzed using descriptive and regression (R) statistics.ResultsThe enjoyment of work and satisfaction outside of work was significantly negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic for all of staff groups independent of other variables. Furthermore, married women reporting significantly lower wellbeing than married men (P = 0.028). Additionally, the wellbeing of single females was significantly lower than both married women and men (P = 0.017 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Gender differences were also found in satisfaction outside of work, with women reporting higher satisfaction than men before the COVID-19 pandemic (P = 0.0002).ConclusionOur study confirms that the enjoyment of work and general satisfaction of staff members has been significantly affected by the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interestingly, being married appears to be a protective factor for wellbeing and resilience but the effect may be reversed for life satisfaction outside work. Our survey highlights the critical need for further research to examine gender differences using a wider range of methods.

This dataset is no longer updated, find vaccination data here From 24 March 2022, Public Health Scotland (PHS) began reporting the number of people who have received a fourth dose of Covid-19 vaccination. Vaccine uptake statistics among care home residents and those who are severely immunosuppressed will be reported initially. PHS will include further updates as the Spring/Summer vaccination programme rolls out. In addition, as part of our continuous review of reporting, PHS made some changes to vaccine uptake statistics. From 24 March 2022, the deceased and those who no longer live in Scotland are no longer be included in vaccine uptake statistics. Historic trend data have been updated to take into account this new methodology for all apart from the Daily Trends by JCVI Priority Group table (more details about the data in this table are below). Scotland level data for all vaccinations administered (i.e. including those who have since died or moved from Scotland) are still available in the Daily Trend of All Vaccinations Delivered in Scotland table. Also from 24 March 2022, Dose 3/Booster doses are termed "Dose 3". To allow new data to be fully processed and available at 14:00, the Daily COVID-19 in Scotland and COVID-19 Vaccination in Scotland datasets will be temporarily unavailable from 12:45 to 14:00. During this window, the datasets will not be visible and any queries made to these datasets will return a 404 - Not found error. At all other times the datasets will be available in full as usual. PHS reviewed the JCVI priority group uptake figures from 18 November 2021, specifically how we derive the numerator and the denominator. The rational for the change is to ensure we report on most up to date living population for each group. For this, the list of individuals in each cohort has been refreshed to be more current. We have also removed individuals who have since died to reflect the current living population. From the 24 March 2022 those who are no longer living in Scotland have also been removed from the numerator and denominator for JCVI priority group uptake figures. This means all the JCVI cohorts and populations have changed for both numerator and denominators on these two dates and care should be taken when interpreting trends. On 08 December 2020, a Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine developed by Pfizer BioNTech (Comirnaty) was first used in the UK as part of national immunisation programmes. The AstraZeneca (Spikevax) vaccine was also approved for use in the national programme, and rollout of this vaccine began on 04 January 2021. Moderna (Vaxzevria) vaccine was approved for use on 8 January 2021 and rollout of this vaccine began on 07 April 2021. These vaccines have met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Those giving the vaccine to others were the first to receive the vaccination. In the first phase of the programme, NHS Scotland followed the independent advice received from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) and prioritised delivery of the vaccine to those with the greatest clinical need, in line with the recommended order of prioritisation. For booster vaccinations a similar approach has been adopted. Definitions used in the vaccine uptake by JCVI priority group resource can be found in the JCVI Priority Group Definitions table. Individuals can appear in more than one JCVI priority group. This dataset provides information on daily number of COVID vaccinations in Scotland. Data on the total number of vaccinations in Scotland is presented by day administered and vaccine type, by age group, by sex, by non-age cohorts and by geographies (NHS Board and Local Authority). As the population in the cohorts can change with time, these will be refined when updated data are available. Additional data sources relating to this topic area are provided in the Links section of the Metadata below. Data visualisation and additional notes are available on the Public Health Scotland - Covid 19 Scotland dashboard.

Russia Fuel Cards Market to 2023 is invaluable for issuers of fleet cards, fuel retailers, fleet leasing companies and other suppliers to the sector. Based on research with issuers and fuel retailers it provides commercial (B2B) fuel card volume (split by fleet and CRT), value and market share forecasts to 2023 with the impact of COVID-19, key data on independent and oil company card issuers and an analysis of fuel card competition in Russia. Read More

BackgroundLong-term health conditions can affect labour market outcomes. COVID-19 may have increased labour market inequalities, e.g. due to restricted opportunities for clinically vulnerable people. Evaluating COVID-19’s impact could help target support.AimTo quantify the effect of several long-term conditions on UK labour market outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare them to pre-pandemic outcomes.MethodsThe Understanding Society COVID-19 survey collected responses from around 20,000 UK residents in nine waves from April 2020-September 2021. Participants employed in January/February 2020 with a variety of long-term conditions were matched with people without the condition but with similar baseline characteristics. Models estimated probability of employment, hours worked and earnings. We compared these results with results from a two-year pre-pandemic period. We also modelled probability of furlough and home-working frequency during COVID-19.ResultsMost conditions (asthma, arthritis, emotional/nervous/psychiatric problems, vascular/pulmonary/liver conditions, epilepsy) were associated with reduced employment probability and/or hours worked during COVID-19, but not pre-pandemic. Furlough was more likely for people with pulmonary conditions. People with arthritis and cancer were slower to return to in-person working. Few effects were seen for earnings.ConclusionCOVID-19 had a disproportionate impact on people with long-term conditions’ labour market outcomes.

Further information about the study may be found on the COVID Social Mobility and Opportunities Study (COSMO) webpage.

COSMO Wave 2, 2022-2023
All young people who took part in Wave 1 (see SN 9000) were invited to the second Wave of the study, along with their parents (whether or not they took part in Wave 1).

Data collection in Wave 2 was carried out between October 2022 and April 2023 where young people and parents/guardians were first invited to a web survey. In addition to online reminders, some non-respondents were followed up via face-to-face visits or telephone calls over the winter and throughout spring. Online ‘mop-up’ fieldwork was also carried out to invite all non-respondents into the survey one last time before the end of fieldwork.

Latest edition information:
For the second edition (April 2024), a standalone dataset from the Keeping in Touch (KIT) exercise carried out after the completion of Wave 2, late 2023 have been deposited. This entailed a very short questionnaire for updating contact details and brief updates on young people's lives. A longitudinal parents dataset has also been deposited, to help data users find core background information from parents who took part in either Wave 1 or Wave 2 in one place. Finally, the young people's dataset has been updated (version 1.1) with additional codes added from some open-ended questions. The COSMO Wave 1 Data User Guide Version 1.1 explains these updates in detail. A technical report and accompanying appendices has also been deposited.

Further information about the study may be found on the COSMO website.

The Centre for Time Use Research (CTUR) Time Use Survey conducted in March 2023 is a UK representative survey of UK adults aged 18+ (N=2179) collected using a multi-field digital time-use diary design that corresponds to the information collected in best practice pen-and-paper designs such as the Harmonised European Time Use Survey (HETUS). A general-purpose time use survey design, incorporating multiple continuous independent diary fields, is important because it offers both continuity with historically collected time use diary data and versatility, providing data for a wide-ranging and still growing corpus of substantive research and policy applications.

The online diary design developed at the CTUR (the Extended Light Diary Digital Instrument - ELiDDI) mimics the ‘light diary’ visually intuitive interface, and including all the fields and activities of the HETUS diary. It builds on and is compatible with the previous CaDDI online diary design used for the Centre for Time Use Research (CTUR) UK Time Use Survey 6-Wave Sequence across the COVID-19 Pandemic 2016-2021(UKDS Study ID 8741). Methodological work to date suggests that this visually intuitive design does not lead to an erosion of data quality or increased respondent burden.

The nationally representative survey was conducted in March 2023 in a 3-way collaboration between CTUR, Dynata (a leading international market research agency conforming to the Market Research Society's ethical code who designed the digital diary interface) and the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), who provided the UK representative sample and ran the logistics of the data collection exercise.

Respondents were invited to complete 2 diaries, one on a randomly sampled weekday, one on a weekend day, recording activities, location, co-presence, device use, and enjoyment across continuous 10-minute episodes throughout the diary day. The accompanying background questionnaire collected information on the standard socio-demographic variables, and a diary day questionnaire included additional information about each diary day.

Latest edition information

For the second edition (August 2025), updated data files and accompanying documentation, and a new technical report providing technical details about the data collection, have been added. The updated dataset also includes two additional variables: panel_psu (Panel Primary Sampling Unit identifier) and panel_strata (Stratum identifier for panel sampling design).

Including these new variables allows users to exactly specify the survey design, which is advisable for computing accurate confidence intervals, hypothesis tests, and regression standard errors.

In Stata, the survey design can be declared using the following command:

svyset panel_psu [pweight=rweight], strata(panel_strata)

Sweden Fuel Cards Market to 2023 is invaluable for issuers of fleet cards, fuel retailers, fleet leasing companies and other suppliers to the sector. Based on research with issuers and fuel retailers it provides commercial (B2B) fuel card volume (split by fleet and CRT), value and market share forecasts to 2023 with the impact of COVID-19, key data on independent and oil company card issuers and an analysis of fuel card competition in Sweden. Read More

Data set from 80 participants. Statements contained misinformation and true statements regarding COVID-19. Statements were also accompanied by narrative elaboration that expanded on the text. Participants had to rate each statement for believability and willingness to share the statement online. Greater scores indicated greater believability and a greater willingness to share the statement. Data were analysed using paired samples t-tests and correlations. Participants were also grouped by age with younger adults aged 18-34 and older adults aged 35 and over. Age effects were analysed using independent samples t-tests.

Turkey Fuel Cards Market to 2023 is invaluable for issuers of fleet cards, fuel retailers, fleet leasing companies and other suppliers to the sector. Based on research with issuers and fuel retailers it provides commercial (B2B) fuel card volume (split by fleet and CRT), value and market share forecasts to 2023 with the impact of COVID-19, key data on independent and oil company card issuers and an analysis of fuel card competition in Turkey. Read More

Greece Fuel Cards Market to 2023 is invaluable for issuers of fleet cards, fuel retailers, fleet leasing companies and other suppliers to the sector. Based on research with issuers and fuel retailers it provides commercial (B2B) fuel card volume (split by fleet and CRT), value and market share forecasts to 2023 with the impact of COVID-19, key data on independent and oil company card issuers and an analysis of fuel card competition in Greece. Read More

Supplementary Information Files for: Online social endorsement and Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United KingdomWe 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 TVdependent 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.

Romania Fuel Cards Market to 2023 is invaluable for issuers of fleet cards, fuel retailers, fleet leasing companies and other suppliers to the sector. Based on research with issuers and fuel retailers it provides commercial (B2B) fuel card volume (split by fleet and CRT), value and market share forecasts to 2023 with the impact of COVID-19, key data on independent and oil company card issuers and an analysis of fuel card competition in Romania. Read More