7 datasets found
  1. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps etc.) (England)...

    • gov.uk
    • s3.amazonaws.com
    Updated Jul 13, 2022
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Department of Health and Social Care (2022). The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps etc.) (England) (Revocation and Amendment) Regulations 2021: equality analysis [Dataset]. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-health-protection-coronavirus-restrictions-steps-etc-england-revocation-and-amendment-regulations-2021-equality-analysis
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Jul 13, 2022
    Dataset provided by
    GOV.UKhttp://gov.uk/
    Authors
    Department of Health and Social Care
    Description

    These documents record the equality analysis undertaken for the decision to move England into step 4 through the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps etc.) (England) (Revocation and Amendment) Regulations 2021.

    Ministers are required under the https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/2260/contents/made">Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to have regard to the need to:

    • eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation
    • advance equality of opportunity between different groups
    • foster good relations between different groups

    Ministers are required to consider the impact of policy decisions on people’s protected characteristics, with particular emphasis on meeting the duties set out above. These protected characteristics are:

    • age
    • disability
    • gender reassignment
    • pregnancy and maternity
    • marriage and civil partnership
    • race
    • religion or belief
    • sex
    • sexual orientation

    The regulations covered by these PSED documents relate to the decision to move England into step 4 on 19 July 2021. This resulted in most legal restrictions, including those relating to social distancing and social contact, ending. All remaining businesses were allowed to reopen.

  2. Data_Sheet_3_Academic health science networks' experiences with rapid...

    • frontiersin.figshare.com
    pdf
    Updated Jun 11, 2023
    + more versions
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Alexandra Ziemann; Andrew Sibley; Harry Scarbrough; Sam Tuvey; Sarah Robens (2023). Data_Sheet_3_Academic health science networks' experiences with rapid implementation practice during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.PDF [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2022.943527.s003
    Explore at:
    pdfAvailable download formats
    Dataset updated
    Jun 11, 2023
    Dataset provided by
    Frontiers Mediahttp://www.frontiersin.org/
    Authors
    Alexandra Ziemann; Andrew Sibley; Harry Scarbrough; Sam Tuvey; Sarah Robens
    License

    Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
    License information was derived automatically

    Description

    The COVID-19 pandemic offered a “natural laboratory” to learn about rapid implementation of health and social care innovations in an altered implementation context. Our aim was to explore implementation practice of Academic Health Science Networks (AHSN) in the English National Health System during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic through a rapid implementation lens. We organized three 90-min, online, semi-structured focus groups with 26 operational and senior managerial staff from 14 AHSNs in June-July 2020. Participants were recruited purposefully and on a voluntary basis. Participants presented a case study about their approaches to implementing innovations between March-June 2020 and discussed their experiences and lessons learned. The focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts and other documents were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis following a combination of grounded theory and framework analysis approach. AHSNs increased the pace of their implementation work to support the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The disruptive event changed the implementation context which enabled rapid implementation through an urgency for change, the need to adhere to social distancing rules, new enabling governance structures, and stakeholders' reduced risk averseness toward change. AHSNs achieved rapid implementation through: (1) An agile and adaptive implementation approach; (2) Accelerating existing innovations and building on existing relationships/networks; (3) Remote stakeholder engagement; and (4) Ensuring quality, safety, rigor and sustainability, and generating new evidence through rapid evaluations. AHSNs aimed at sustaining implementation pace and efficiency after the acute phase of the pandemic mainly through remote stakeholder engagement and flexibility of implementation strategies.

  3. l

    Supplementary Information Files for Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK:...

    • repository.lboro.ac.uk
    docx
    Updated May 31, 2023
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Daniel Freeman; Bao S Loe; Andrew Chadwick; Cristian Vaccari; Felicity Waite; Laina Rosebrock; Lucy Jenner; Ariane Petit; Stephan Lewandowsky; Samantha Vanderslott; Stefania Innocenti; Michael Larkin; Alberto Giubilini; Ly-Mee Yu; Helen McShane; Andrew J. Pollard; Sinéad Lambe (2023). Supplementary Information Files for Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: The Oxford Coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (OCEANS) II [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.17028/rd.lboro.13573595.v1
    Explore at:
    docxAvailable download formats
    Dataset updated
    May 31, 2023
    Dataset provided by
    Loughborough University
    Authors
    Daniel Freeman; Bao S Loe; Andrew Chadwick; Cristian Vaccari; Felicity Waite; Laina Rosebrock; Lucy Jenner; Ariane Petit; Stephan Lewandowsky; Samantha Vanderslott; Stefania Innocenti; Michael Larkin; Alberto Giubilini; Ly-Mee Yu; Helen McShane; Andrew J. Pollard; Sinéad Lambe
    License

    Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
    License information was derived automatically

    Area covered
    Oxford, United Kingdom
    Description

    Supplementary Information Files for Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: The Oxford Coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (OCEANS) IIBackground: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a 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.

  4. People moving during coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in European cities 2020...

    • statista.com
    Updated Mar 16, 2020
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Statista (2020). People moving during coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in European cities 2020 [Dataset]. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106086/european-city-movements-during-coronavirus-outbreak/
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Mar 16, 2020
    Dataset authored and provided by
    Statistahttp://statista.com/
    Time period covered
    Mar 16, 2020 - Mar 22, 2020
    Area covered
    Europe
    Description

    The coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has forced governments across the world to implement social distancing measures and lockdowns in order to reduce the number of new cases and deaths. Using data from their travel app, Citymapper were able to produce a Mobility Index to indicate the movements of certain European cities during the period from March 16-22, 2020. Countries hardest hit by the virus and where lockdowns are in places appeared to have the least amount of movement. In Milan, Italy, only **** percent of the city were moving and in Madrid, Spain, only **** percent according to the Index. However in other affected cities movement was still higher, such as in London where ** percent of the city were still moving in the week ending March 22; The next day, the UK govenrment implemented a lockdown with stricter regulations regarding when people can go out.

  5. f

    Data_Sheet_1_Use of immunology in news and YouTube videos in the context of...

    • datasetcatalog.nlm.nih.gov
    • frontiersin.figshare.com
    Updated Feb 16, 2024
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Ghezzi, Pietro; Tula, Rovena; Goodey, Hannah; Russo, Maria Antonietta; George, Rachel Surrage (2024). Data_Sheet_1_Use of immunology in news and YouTube videos in the context of COVID-19: politicisation and information bubbles.docx [Dataset]. https://datasetcatalog.nlm.nih.gov/dataset?q=0001459967
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Feb 16, 2024
    Authors
    Ghezzi, Pietro; Tula, Rovena; Goodey, Hannah; Russo, Maria Antonietta; George, Rachel Surrage
    Area covered
    YouTube
    Description

    BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic propelled immunology into global news and social media, resulting in the potential for misinterpreting and misusing complex scientific concepts.ObjectiveTo study the extent to which immunology is discussed in news articles and YouTube videos in English and Italian, and if related scientific concepts are used to support specific political or ideological narratives in the context of COVID-19.MethodsIn English and Italian we searched the period 11/09/2019 to 11/09/2022 on YouTube, using the software Mozdeh, for videos mentioning COVID-19 and one of nine immunological concepts: antibody-dependent enhancement, anergy, cytokine storm, herd immunity, hygiene hypothesis, immunity debt, original antigenic sin, oxidative stress and viral interference. We repeated this using MediaCloud for news articles.Four samples of 200 articles/videos were obtained from the randomised data gathered and analysed for mentions of concepts, stance on vaccines, masks, lockdown, social distancing, and political signifiers.ResultsVaccine-negative information was higher in videos than news (8-fold in English, 6-fold in Italian) and higher in Italian than English (4-fold in news, 3-fold in videos). We also observed the existence of information bubbles, where a negative stance towards one intervention was associated with a negative stance to other linked ideas. Some immunological concepts (immunity debt, viral interference, anergy and original antigenic sin) were associated with anti-vaccine or anti-NPI (non-pharmacological intervention) views. Videos in English mentioned politics more frequently than those in Italian and, in all media and languages, politics was more frequently mentioned in anti-guidelines and anti-vaccine media by a factor of 3 in video and of 3–5 in news.ConclusionThere is evidence that some immunological concepts are used to provide credibility to specific narratives and ideological views. The existence of information bubbles supports the concept of the “rabbit hole” effect, where interest in unconventional views/media leads to ever more extreme algorithmic recommendations.

  6. Legal aid statistics quarterly: April to June 2021

    • gov.uk
    • s3.amazonaws.com
    Updated Sep 30, 2021
    + more versions
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Ministry of Justice (2021). Legal aid statistics quarterly: April to June 2021 [Dataset]. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/legal-aid-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2021
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Sep 30, 2021
    Dataset provided by
    GOV.UKhttp://gov.uk/
    Authors
    Ministry of Justice
    Description

    The quarterly legal aid statistics bulletin presents statistics on the legal aid scheme administered by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) for England and Wales. This edition comprises the first release of statistics for the three month period from April to June 2021 and also provides the latest statement of figures for all earlier periods. These statistics are derived from data held by LAA, produced and published by Legal Aid Statistics team of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ).

    Statistician’s Comment

    This publication shows that completed workload and the associated expenditure has increased year on year and has also increased more over the recent quarters, due to recovery from COVID-19, across both the criminal legal aid and civil legal aid schemes. Some areas have seen large increases and this is mainly due to comparisons against unusually low volumes of workload in the early stages of the pandemic and in some instances within the report comparisons are also given against pre-covid volumes, in order to provide a comparison against pre-covid levels of activity.

    Criminal legal aid expenditure increased compared to the same quarter last year in schemes that support the court system, including the magistrates’ and Crown Court. The incoming workload for representation at the courts has almost returned to levels seen in the period pre-covid. Complex trial cases ongoing at the Crown Court are not completing at the same rate as pre-covid due to social distancing measures, and reduced capacity in the courts is impacting upon closed claim expenditure.

    Civil legal aid volumes and expenditure show a mixed picture compared to the same quarter last year. Overall, family law and mediation expenditure has returned to pre-pandemic levels. In April to June 2021, non-family law expenditure remains 15% lower than the same period of 2019. This is driven by the slow recovery of housing work following the impact of COVID. Overall civil legal aid workload still remains below pre-pandemic levels (by around 10%).

    It was expected that criminal and civil legal aid volumes would return to, and even temporarily exceed, historic trend levels and more recent falls could be due to this return to normal levels or impact from further lockdowns.

    Pre-release

    Pre-release access of up to 24 hours is granted to the following persons:

    Ministry of Justice

    Secretary of State for Justice, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Permanent Secretary, Director General Chief Financial Officer Group, Directors of Data and Analysis (2), Head of Access to Justice Policy, Deputy Director Legal Aid Policy, Chief Statistician, Special Advisor Inbox, Legal Aid Policy Officials (6), Press Officers (3), Digital Officers (2), Private secretaries (5), Head of Legal Aid Analysis (2)

    Legal Aid Agency

    Chief Executive, Chief Executive’s Office, Head of Financial Forecasting, Senior External Communications Manager, Director of Finance Business Partnering, Service Development Managers (2), Exceptional and Complex Cases Workflow Co-ordinator, Change Manager

  7. Criminal justice system statistics quarterly: December 2019

    • s3.amazonaws.com
    • gov.uk
    Updated May 21, 2020
    + more versions
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Ministry of Justice (2020). Criminal justice system statistics quarterly: December 2019 [Dataset]. https://s3.amazonaws.com/thegovernmentsays-files/content/161/1619316.html
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    May 21, 2020
    Dataset provided by
    GOV.UKhttp://gov.uk/
    Authors
    Ministry of Justice
    Description

    The report presents key statistics on activity in the criminal justice system for England and Wales. It provides information up to the year ending December 2019 with accompanying commentary, analysis and presentation of longer term trends.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has caused MoJ to have to change its data gathering, access and release practices, focusing efforts on priority analysis and statistics. Our statement explains this further and in particular, we are pausing access to the Police National Computer, to minimise non-essential travel by our analysts. In line with guidance from the Office for Statistics Regulation, the decision has been made to delay the publishing of cautions data and the offending histories chapter of this publication. We will keep users updated of any further changes via our published release calendar.

    The COVID-19 pandemic guidance on travel and social distancing has restricted access to some IT systems, so we are delaying the release of the detailed data tools for 2019 to finalise validation and quality assurance processes. We hope to be able to publish these tools on 28th May. Note that the impact of these quality assurance processes is likely to be very minor at an aggregate level and so should not affect the contents of the published bulletin or headline overview tables.

    Statistician’s comment

    The number of defendants prosecuted has fallen over the last decade – and figures published today show a further slight decrease in 2019, though there were increases in some of the most serious offence groups, in particular violence. The increase in prosecutions and convictions for violence was driven by the legislation that introduced the new offence of ‘assaults on emergency workers’ from November 2018. The publication also shows that custody rates, which have risen over the last decade, fell slightly in the last year, in part because of the change in the offence mix – with a rise in the proportion of all sentences that were for offences which are less likely to result in a custodial sentence.

    Although we often consider crimes to correlate with prosecutions, we would not expect prosecutions to move directly in line with the ONS published police recorded crime series, or Crime Survey for England and Wales as only those crimes that result in a charge are likely to flow into courts – in addition criminal court prosecutions cover a much broader range of offences than police recorded crime or the survey.

    The period of data covered by this report covers calendar year 2019, so court activity will not have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We will consider how we can best cover this in future publications. In the meantime, HMCTS publish regular management information on court activity here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hmcts-management-information.

    Pre-release access

    The bulletin is produced and handled by the ministry’s analytical professionals and production staff. Pre-release access of up to 24 hours is granted to the following persons:

    Ministry of Justice

    Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice; Minister of State for Prisons and Probation; 2 Parliamentary Under Secretary of States; Lords spokesperson; Principal Private Secretary; Deputy Principal Private Secretary; 3 Private Secretaries; 4 Assistant Private Secretaries; Permanent Secretary; Head of Permanent Secretary’s Office; Special Advisor; Head of News; 2 Deputy Heads of News; 2 Press Officers; Director, Family and Criminal Justice Policy; Director of Data and Analytical Services; Chief Statistician; Director General, Policy, Communications and Analysis Group; Deputy Director, Bail, Sentencing and Release Policy; Section Head, Criminal Court Policy; Director, Offender and Youth Justice Policy; Director, Offender and Youth Justice Policy; Statistician, Youth Justice Board; Data Analyst, Youth Justice Board; Head of Courts and Sentencing, Youth Justice Policy; Deputy Director, Crime; Crime Service Manager (Case Progression) - Courts and Tribunals Development; Deputy Director, Legal Operations - Courts & Tribunals Development Directorate; Head of Criminal Law policy; 6 Policy Advisors.

    Home Office

    Home Secretary; Private Secretary to the Home Secretary; Deputy Principal Private Secretary to the Home Secretary; Permanent Secretary, Home Office; Assistant Private Secretary to the Home Office Permanent Secretary; Min

  8. Not seeing a result you expected?
    Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.

Share
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
Email
Click to copy link
Link copied
Close
Cite
Department of Health and Social Care (2022). The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps etc.) (England) (Revocation and Amendment) Regulations 2021: equality analysis [Dataset]. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-health-protection-coronavirus-restrictions-steps-etc-england-revocation-and-amendment-regulations-2021-equality-analysis
Organization logo

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps etc.) (England) (Revocation and Amendment) Regulations 2021: equality analysis

Explore at:
Dataset updated
Jul 13, 2022
Dataset provided by
GOV.UKhttp://gov.uk/
Authors
Department of Health and Social Care
Description

These documents record the equality analysis undertaken for the decision to move England into step 4 through the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps etc.) (England) (Revocation and Amendment) Regulations 2021.

Ministers are required under the https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/2260/contents/made">Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to have regard to the need to:

  • eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation
  • advance equality of opportunity between different groups
  • foster good relations between different groups

Ministers are required to consider the impact of policy decisions on people’s protected characteristics, with particular emphasis on meeting the duties set out above. These protected characteristics are:

  • age
  • disability
  • gender reassignment
  • pregnancy and maternity
  • marriage and civil partnership
  • race
  • religion or belief
  • sex
  • sexual orientation

The regulations covered by these PSED documents relate to the decision to move England into step 4 on 19 July 2021. This resulted in most legal restrictions, including those relating to social distancing and social contact, ending. All remaining businesses were allowed to reopen.

Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu