Search

Background: Comparative optimism, the belief that negative events are more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself, is well established in health risk research. It is unknown, however, whether comparative optimism also permeates people's health expectations and potentially behaviour during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Objectives: Data were collected through an international survey (N = 6485) exploring people's thoughts and psychosocial behaviours relating to COVID‐19. This paper reports UK data on comparative optimism. In particular, we examine the belief that negative events surrounding risk and recovery from COVID‐19 are perceived as more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself. Methods: Using online snowball sampling through social media, anonymous UK survey data were collected from N = 645 adults during weeks 5‐8 of the UK COVID‐19 lockdown. The sample was normally distributed in terms of age and reflected the UK ethnic and disability profile. Findings: Respondents demonstrated comparative optimism where they believed that as compared to others of the same age and gender, they were unlikely to experience a range of controllable (eg accidentally infect/ be infected) and uncontrollable (eg need hospitalization/ intensive care treatment if infected) COVID‐19‐related risks in the short term (P <.001). They were comparatively pessimistic (ie thinking they were more at risk than others for developing COVID‐19‐related infection or symptoms) when thinking about the next year. Discussion: This is one of the first ever studies to report compelling comparative biases in UK adults' thinking about COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate whether the introduction of non‐invasive pre‐natal testing for Down's syndrome (DS) has the potential to undermine informed choice. Participants: Three hundred and ninety‐three health professionals; 523 pregnant women. Methods: A cross‐sectional questionnaire study across nine maternity units and three conferences in the UK designed to assess opinions regarding test delivery and how information should be communicated to women when offered Down's syndrome screening (DSS) or diagnosis using invasive (IDT) or non‐invasive testing (NIPT). Results: Both pregnant women and health professionals in the NIPT and DSS groups were less likely than the IDT group to consider that testing should take place at a return visit or that obtaining written consent was necessary, and more likely to think testing should be carried out routinely. Compared to health professionals, pregnant women expressed a stronger preference for testing to occur on the same day as pre‐test counselling (P = 0.000) and for invasive testing to be offered routinely (P = 0.000). They were also more likely to indicate written consent as necessary for DSS (P = 0.000) and NIPT (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Health professionals and pregnant women view the consenting process differently across antenatal test types. These differences suggest that informed choice may be undermined with the introduction of NIPT for DS into clinical practice. To maintain high standards of care, effective professional training programmes and practice guidelines are needed which prioritize informed consent and take into account the views and needs of service users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]