Search

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Kingdom implemented physical distancing measures to minimize viral transmission, which may have adversely impacted health and wellbeing. Evidence suggests that social support may be key to mitigating against adverse health impacts of such measures, particularly when such social support is identity-based. In this longitudinal study, we examined the role of social identity and perceived social support in mental and physical health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants completed a survey at 4 time points during the first year of the pandemic: May/June 2020 (T1; N = 443); September/October 2020 (T2; N = 235); December 2020/January 2021 (T3; N = 243); and April 2021 (T4; N = 206). Results showed that at each time point, social support was predicted by identification with multiple groups before COVID-19, identity continuity, and identification with communities. Higher identity continuity and identification with communities both predicted greater mental and physical health at the same time point, mediated by perceived social support. Interestingly, higher identity continuity and identification with communities predicted higher social support at the same time point, which in turn predicted worse mental and physical health outcomes at the subsequent time point. Findings are discussed in relation to the context of the first year of the pandemic and the changing nature of societal restrictions across the four survey time points.

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are frontline responders to emergency infectious disease outbreaks such as COVID-19. To avoid the rapid spread of disease, adherence to protective measures is paramount. We investigated rates of correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), hand hygiene and physical distancing in UK HCWs who had been to their workplace at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and factors associated with adherence.MethodsWe used an online cross-sectional survey of 1035 UK healthcare professionals (data collected 12–16 June 2020). We excluded those who had not been to their workplace in the previous 6 weeks, leaving us with a sample size of 831. Respondents were asked about their use of PPE, hand hygiene and physical distancing in the workplace. Frequency of uptake was reported descriptively; adjusted logistic regressions were used to separately investigate factors associated with adherence to use of PPE, maintaining good hand hygiene and physical distancing from colleagues.ResultsAdherence to personal protective measures was suboptimal (PPE use: 80.0%, 95% CI 77.3 to 82.8; hand hygiene: 67.8%, 95% CI 64.6 to 71.0; coming into close contact with colleagues: 74.7%, 95% CI 71.7 to 77.7). Adherence to PPE use was associated with having received training about health and safety in the workplace for COVID-19, greater perceived social pressure to adopt the behaviour and availability of PPE. Non-adherence was associated with fatalism about COVID-19 and greater perceived difficulty of adopting protective measures. Workplace design using markings to facilitate distancing was associated with adherence to physical distancing.ConclusionsUptake of personal protective behaviours among UK HCWs at the start of the pandemic was variable. Factors associated with adherence provide insight into ways to support HCWs to adopt personal protective behaviours, such as ensuring that adequate PPE is available and designing workplaces to facilitate physical distancing.

Background As of March 2020, the UK public were instructed to work from home and as a result, nearly half of those in employment did so during the following month. Pre-pandemic, around 5% of workers chose to work from home; it was often seen as advantageous, for example due to eliminating commuting time and increasing flexibility. However, homeworking also had negative connotations, for example, blurred boundaries between work and home life due to a sense of constant connectivity to the workplace. Therefore, understanding the psychological impact of working from home in an enforced and prolonged manner due to the COVID-19 pandemic is important. Therefore, this review sought to establish the impact of working from home in terms of mental health and productivity. Methods In January 2022, literature searches were conducted across four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Web of Science. In February 2022 grey literature searches were conducted using Google Advanced Search, NHS Evidence; Gov.uk Publications; and the British Library directory of online doctoral theses. Published and unpublished literature which collected data after March 2020, included participants who experienced working from home for at least some of their working hours, and detailed the impact of homeworking in relation to mental health or productivity were included. Results In total 6,906 citations were screened and 25 papers from electronic databases were included. Grey literature searching resulted in two additional papers. Therefore, 27 studies were included in this review. Findings suggest the impact of homeworking on mental health and productivity varies considerably, suggesting a complex relationship, with many factors having an influence on the relationship. Conclusion We found that there was no clear consensus as to the impact of working from home on mental health or productivity. However, there are indications that those who start homeworking for the first time during a pandemic are at risk of poor productivity, as are those who experience poor mental health. Suggestions for future research are suggested.

Seasonal changes in the measured CO2 levels at four schools are herein presented through a set of indoor air quality metrics that were gathered during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Data from non-intrusive environmental monitoring units were remotely collected throughout 2021 from 36 naturally ventilated classrooms at two primary schools and two secondary schools in England. Measurements were analysed to assess the indoor CO2 concentration and temperature. Relative to UK school air quality guidance, the CO2 levels within classrooms remained relatively low during periods of warmer weather, with elevated CO2 levels being evident during the colder seasons, indicating lower levels of per person ventilation during these colder periods. However, CO2 data from the cold period during the latter part of 2021, imply that the per person classroom ventilation levels were significantly lower than those achieved during a similarly cold weather period during the early part of the year. Given that the classroom architecture and usage remained unchanged, this finding suggests that changes in the ventilation behaviours within the classrooms may have altered, and raises questions as to what may have given rise to such change, in a year when, messaging and public concerns regarding COVID-19 varied within the UK. Significant variations were observed when contrasting data, both between schools, and between classrooms within the same school building; suggesting that work is required to understand and catalogue the existing ventilation provisions and architecture within UK classrooms, and that more work is required to ascertain the effects of classroom ventilation behaviours.

A lesson identified from the COVID-19 pandemic is that we need to extend existing best practice for intervention development by establishing better methods of rapidly coproducing public health interventions and messaging to support all population groups to protect themselves and their communities, together with better methods of rapidly evaluating interventions to determine which are acceptable and effective. This paper describes the Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework, which is intended to provide a focus for investigating new ways of rapidly developing effective interventions and messaging by combining co-production methods with large-scale testing and/or real-world evaluation. We briefly review some of the participatory, qualitative and quantitative methods that could potentially be combined and propose a research agenda to further develop, refine and validate packages of methods in a variety of public health contexts to determine which combinations are feasible, cost-effective and achieve the goal of improving health and reducing health inequalities.

We examined whether varying information about long COVID would affect expectations about the illness.In October 2021, we conducted a 2 (Illness Description: long COVID vs. ongoing COVID-19 recovery) × 2 (Symptom Uncertainty: uncertainty emphasized vs. not emphasized) × 2 (Efficacy of Support: enhanced vs. basic support) between-subjects randomized online experimental study. Participants (We ran a series of 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs on the outcome variables. We found a main effect of illness description: individuals reported longer symptom duration and less illness coherence when the illness was described as long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery). There was a main effect of symptom uncertainty: when uncertainty was emphasized, participants reported longer expected symptom duration (p.001), less treatment control (Communications around long COVID should avoid emphasizing symptom uncertainty and aim to provide people with access to additional support and information on how they can facilitate their recovery. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

IntroductionCulturally appropriate interventions to promote COVID-19 health protective measures among Black and South Asian communities in the UK are needed. We aim to carry out a preliminary evaluation of an intervention to reduce risk of COVID-19 comprising a short film and electronic leaflet.Methods and analysisThis mixed methods study comprises (1) a focus group to understand how people from the relevant communities interpret and understand the intervention’s messages, (2) a before-and-after questionnaire study examining the extent to which the intervention changes intentions and confidence to carry out COVID-19 protective behaviours and (3) a further qualitative study exploring the views of Black and South Asian people of the intervention and the experiences of health professionals offering the intervention. Participants will be recruited through general practices. Data collection will be carried out in the community.Ethics and disseminationThe study received Health Research Authority approval in June 2021 (Research Ethics Committee Reference 21/LO/0452). All participants provided informed consent. As well as publishing the findings in peer-reviewed journals, we will disseminate the findings through the UK Health Security Agency, NHS England and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and ensure culturally appropriate messaging for participants and other members of the target groups.

Background In the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative that people understand and comply with self-isolation guidelines. We tested whether a simplified version of the guidelines and a simplified version with visual aids would affect comprehension and intention to self-isolate during the containment phase of the pandemic in the UK, in March 2020, compared to the standard guidelines. Methods We conducted an online, three-armed parallel randomized controlled trial. Participants were English and over 18. The survey software randomized them into conditions; they were blind to condition. The control group read the 7-page standard guidelines (the current version at the time of the trial). The intervention groups were given either a 3-page simplified version, with a summary box on the front page and numbered bullet points, or the same simplified version with pictograms illustrating the points in the box. Primary outcomes were comprehension of the guidelines, as measured by the number of correct answers given to six questions about the content, and the proportion who answered that they would ‘definitely’ stay at home for 7 days if symptomatic. Findings Recruitment was from 13 to 16 March 2020, with 1845 participants randomised and all data analysed. The Control group averaged 4.27 correct answers, the Simplified 4.20, and the Simplified + visual aids 4.13, out of a possible total of 6 correct answers. There were no differences in comprehension in the unadjusted models; however, when the model was adjusted for demographic variables, there was lower comprehension in the simplified + visual aids condition than in the control, (ß = − 0.16, p = 0.04998). There were no statistically significant differences in intention to stay home: Control was 85%, Simplified 83%, and Simplified + visual aids condition 84%. Conclusion Simplified guidance did not improve comprehension compared to the standard guidance issued in the containment phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and simplified guidance with visual aids may even have worsened comprehension. Simplified guidance had no effect on intention to stay home if symptomatic. This trial informed COVID-19 policy and provides insights relevant to guidance production in the acute phase of a major public health emergency.

The ability of the public to remain psychologically resilient in the face of public health emergencies and disasters (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) is a key factor in the effectiveness of a national response to such events. Community resilience and social capital are often perceived as beneficial and ensuring that a community is socially and psychologically resilient may aid emergency response and recovery. This review presents a synthesis of literature which answers the following research questions: How are community resilience and social capital quantified in research?; What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital? A scoping review procedure was followed. Searches were run across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE, with search terms covering community resilience or social capital, public health emergencies, and mental health. 26 papers met the inclusion criteria. The majority of retained papers originated in the USA, used a survey methodology to collect data, and involved a natural disaster. There was no common method of measuring community resilience or social capital. The association between community resilience and social capital with mental health was regarded as positive in most cases. However, we found that community resilience, and social capital, were initially negatively impacted by public health emergencies and enhanced by social group activities. Several key recommendations are proposed based on the outcomes from the review, which include: the need for a standardised and validated approach to measuring community resilience or social capital; that there should be enhanced effort to improve preparedness to public health emergencies in communities by gauging current levels of community resilience and social capital; that community resilience and social capital should be bolstered if areas are at risk of disasters or public health emergencies; the need to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to communities with high resilience in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster; the importance of conducting robust evaluation of community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BackgroundStaff working in intensive care units (ICUs) have faced significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic which have the potential to adversely affect their mental health.AimsTo identify the rates of probable mental health disorder in staff working in ICUs in nine English hospitals during June and July 2020.MethodsAn anonymized brief web-based survey comprising standardized questionnaires examining depression, anxiety symptoms, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), well-being and alcohol use was administered to staff.ResultsSeven hundred and nine participants completed the surveys comprising 291 (41%) doctors, 344 (49%) nurses and 74 (10%) other healthcare staff. Over half (59%) reported good well-being; however, 45% met the threshold for probable clinical significance on at least one of the following measures: severe depression (6%), PTSD (40%), severe anxiety (11%) or problem drinking (7%). Thirteen per cent of respondents reported frequent thoughts of being better off dead, or of hurting themselves in the past 2 weeks. Within the sample used in this study, we found that doctors reported better mental health than nurses across a range of measures.ConclusionsWe found substantial rates of probable mental health disorders, and thoughts of self-harm, amongst ICU staff; these difficulties were especially prevalent in nurses. Whilst further work is needed to better understand the real level of clinical need amongst ICU staff, these results indicate the need for a national strategy to protect the mental health, and decrease the risk of functional impairment, of ICU staff whilst they carry out their essential work during COVID-19.

Climate change requires urgent action; however, it can be challenging to identify individual-level behaviours that should be prioritised for maximum impact. The study aimed to prioritise climate change mitigation behaviours according to their impacts on climate change and public health, and to identify associated barriers and facilitators—exploring the impact of observed behaviour shifts associated with COVID-19 in the UK. A three-round Delphi study and expert workshop were conducted: An expert panel rated mitigation behaviours impacted by COVID-19 in relation to their importance regarding health impacts and climate change mitigation using a five-point Likert scale. Consensus on the importance of target behaviours was determined by interquartile ranges. In total, seven target behaviours were prioritised: installing double/triple glazing; installing cavity wall insulation; installing solid wall insulation; moving away from meat/emission heavy diets; reducing the number of cars per household; walking shorter journeys; and reducing day/weekend leisure car journeys. Barriers related to the costs associated with performing behaviours and a lack of complementary policy-regulated subsidies. The target behaviours are consistent with recommendations from previous research. To ensure public uptake, interventions should address behavioural facilitators and barriers, dovetail climate change mitigation with health co-benefits and account for the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on these behaviours.

Objectives Infectious disease outbreaks can be distressing for everyone, especially those deemed to be particularly vulnerable such as pregnant women, who have been named a high-risk group in the current COVID-19 pandemic. This paper aimed to summarise existing literature on the psychological impact of infectious disease outbreaks on women who were pregnant at the time of the outbreak. Study design The design of this study is a rapid review. Methods Five databases were searched for relevant literature, and main findings were extracted. Results Thirteen articles were included in the review. The following themes were identified: negative emotional states; living with uncertainty; concerns about infection; concerns about and uptake of prophylaxis or treatment; disrupted routines; non-pharmaceutical protective behaviours; social support; financial and occupational concerns; disrupted expectations of birth, prenatal care and postnatal care and sources of information. Conclusions Pregnant women have unique needs during infectious disease outbreaks and could benefit from up-to-date, consistent information and guidance; appropriate support and advice from healthcare professionals, particularly with regards to the risks and benefits of prophylaxis and treatment; virtual support groups and designating locations or staff specifically for pregnant women., Highlights • Pregnant women may be particularly susceptible to distress during pandemics. • Infection fears and prophylaxis concerns may exacerbate distress. • Disrupted routines, financial concerns and uncertainty are also stressors. • Disrupted expectations of birth and related healthcare may be distressing. • Pregnant women may benefit from clear information/guidance and support groups.

ObjectivesIndividuals who receive a negative lateral flow coronavirus test result may misunderstand it as meaning ‘no risk of infectiousness’, giving false reassurance. This experiment tested the impact of adding information to negative test result messages about residual risk and the need to continue protective behaviours.Design.4 (residual risk) × 2 (post-test result behaviours) between-subjects design.Setting.Online.Participants1200 adults from a representative UK sample recruited via Prolific (12–15 March 2021).InterventionsParticipants were randomly allocated to one of eight messages. Residual risk messages were: (1) ‘Your coronavirus test result is negative’ (control); (2) message 1 plus ‘It’s likely you were not infectious when the test was done’ (current NHS Test & Trace (T&T); (3) message 2 plus ‘But there is still a chance you may be infectious’ (elaborated NHS T&T); and (4) message 3 plus infographic depicting residual risk (elaborated NHS T&T+infographic). Each message contained either no additional information or information about the need to continue following guidelines and protective behaviours.Outcome measures(1) Proportion understanding residual risk of infectiousness and (2) likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours (scales 1–7).ResultsThe control message decreased understanding relative to the current NHS T&T message: 54% versus 71% (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=0.56 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95, p=0.030). Understanding increased with the elaborated NHS T&T (89%; AOR=3.25 95% CI 1.64 to 6.42, p=0.001) and elaborated NHS T&T+infographic (91%; AOR=5.16 95% CI 2.47 to 10.82, p2(1)=0.18, p=0.669), being high (M=6.4, SD=0.9) across the sample.ConclusionsA considerable proportion of participants misunderstood the residual risk following a negative test result. The addition of a single sentence (‘But there is still a chance you may be infectious’) to current NHS T&T wording increased understanding of residual risk.Trial registration numberOSF: https://osf.io/byfz3/

ObjectivesWe examined whether providing different types of information about Long COVID would affect expectations about the illness.DesignA 2 (Illness description: Long COVID vs ongoing COVID-19 recovery) x 2 (Illness uncertainty: uncertainty emphasised vs uncertainty not emphasised) x 2 (Efficacy of support: enhanced support vs basic support) between-subjects randomised online experimental study.SettingThe online platform Prolific, collected in October 2021.ParticipantsA representative sample of 1110 members of the public in the UK.InterventionsParticipants were presented with a scenario describing a positive COVID-19 test result and then presented with one of eight scenarios describing a Long COVID diagnosis.Primary and Secondary Outcome MeasuresVarious outcome measures relating to illness expectations were captured including: symptom severity, symptom duration, quality of life, personal control, treatment control and illness coherence.ResultsWe ran a series of 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs on the outcome variables. We found a main effect of illness description: individuals reported longer symptom duration and less illness coherence when the illness was described as Long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery). There was a main effect of illness uncertainty: when uncertainty was emphasised, participants reported longer expected symptom duration, less treatment control, and less illness coherence than when uncertainty was not emphasised. There was also a main effect of efficacy of support: participants reported higher personal control and higher treatment control when support was enhanced (compared to basic support). We also found an interaction between illness description and efficacy of support: when support was enhanced, participants reported less illness coherence for Long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery).ConclusionsCommunications around Long COVID should not emphasise symptom uncertainty and should provide people with information on how they can facilitate their recovery and where they can access additional support. The findings also suggest that use of the term ongoing COVID-19 recovery, where possible, may reduce negative expectations associated with the illness.Strengths and Limitations of this studyThis is one of the first experimental designed studies to assess the impact of different types of communication about Long COVID.Participants were a UK representative sample, although these findings are not necessarily applicable to all population groups (i.e., ethnic minorities).This study is one of the first applications of the IPQ-R in a hypothetical, online experiment, with high reliability.This was an online experiment, with hypothetical scenarios and participants with no experience of COVID-19 or Long COVID, therefore outcomes may be different in a real-world context.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic generated a surge of critically ill patients greater than the NHS’ capacity. Additionally, there have been multiple well-documented impacts associated with the national COVID-19 pandemic surge on ICU workers, including an increased prevalence of mental health disorders on a scale potentially sufficient to impair high-quality care delivery.AimTo identify prevalence of probable mental health disorders and functional impairment. As well as establish demographic and professional predictors of probable mental health disorders and functional impairment in ICU staff between November 2020 to April 2021.MethodsEnglish ICU staff were surveyed before, during and after the winter 2020/2021 surge using a survey which comprised of validated measures of mental health.Results6080 surveys were completed, by nurses (57.5%), doctors (27.9%), and other healthcare staff (14.5%). Reporting probable mental health disorders increased from 51% (prior to), to 64% (during) and then dropped to 46% (after). Younger, less experienced and nursing staff were most likely to report probable mental health disorders. Additionally, during and after the winter, over 50% of participants met threshold criteria for functional impairment. Staff who reported probable post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety or depression were more likely to meet threshold criteria for functional impairment.ConclusionsThe winter of 2020/2021 was associated with an increase in poor mental health outcomes and functional impairment during a period of peak caseload. These effects are likely to impact on patient care outcomes and the longer-term resilience of the healthcare workforce.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the asymptomatic coronavirus testing programme at Durham University by exploring students’ barriers and facilitators to taking part and provide recommendations to improve the programme.DesignQualitative interviews.SettingOnline.Participants30 students enrolled at Durham University were interviewed in March 2021.Main outcome measuresAttitudes towards testing, experiences of testing and barriers and facilitators to engaging in testing at Durham University.ResultsKey motivations for testing included protecting oneself and others and accessing facilities and events. The process of booking, accessing and doing a test was mostly easy and convenient, although some may prefer home testing. There were concerns about the accuracy of tests and the implications of a positive result. Some highlighted they might be less likely to engage in testing if vaccinated. A negative test result provided confidence to engage in their daily activities, while encouraging some to socialise more.ConclusionsThe findings show that the testing programme at Durham University is convenient and well organised, with testing as a potential requirement to access social events, and self-isolation support being key contributor to uptake. These findings provide insights into young adults’ attitudes towards testing and can inform testing programmes in other universities and settings with asymptomatic testing programmes.

Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic caused countries across the globe to impose restrictions to slow the spread of the virus, with people instructed to stay at home and reduce contact with others. This reduction in social contact has the potential to negatively impact mental health and well-being. The restrictions are particularly concerning for people with existing chronic illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, who may be especially affected by concerns about the pandemic and associated reduction of social contact. The aim of this review was to synthesise published literature on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the social and psychological well-being of people with Parkinson's disease. Study design The design of this study is a scoping review. Methods We searched five electronic databases for English language articles containing primary data on this topic. Results Thirty-one relevant studies were found and included in the review. Six main themes were identified: impact of the pandemic on physical and mental health; COVID-19 concerns; access to health care; impact on daily and social activities; impact on physical activity and impact on caregivers. Levels of perceived risk of COVID-19 differed across studies, but most participants had adopted preventive measures such as staying at home and reducing social contacts. Participants in many studies reported a discontinuation of regular healthcare appointments and physiotherapy, as well as concerns about being able to obtain medication. Loss of daily activities and social support was noted by many participants. There was mixed evidence on the impact of the pandemic on physical exercise, with some studies finding no change in physical activity and others reporting a reduction; generally, participants with reduced physical activity had poorer mental health and greater worsening of symptoms. Caregivers of people with Parkinson's disease were more likely to be negatively affected by the pandemic if they cared for people with complex needs such as additional mental health problems. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has had negative effects on the physical and mental health of people with Parkinson's disease, perhaps due to disruption of healthcare services, loss of usual activities and supports and reduction in physical activity. We make recommendations for policy, practice and future research.

BackgroundLarge-scale vaccination is fundamental to combatting COVID-19. In March 2021, the UK’s vaccination programme had delivered vaccines to large proportions of older and more vulnerable population groups; however, there was concern that uptake would be lower among young people. This research was designed to elicit the preferences of 18-29-year-olds with respect to key delivery characteristics.MethodsFrom 25 March - 2 April 2021, an online sample of 2,021 UK adults aged 18-29 years participated in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Participants made six choices, each between two SMS invitations to get vaccinated; each choice also had an opt-out. Each invitation had four attributes (1 x 5 levels, 3 x 3 levels): delivery mode, appointment timing, proximity, and SMS sender. These were systematically varied according to a d-optimal fractional factorial design. Order of presentation was randomised for each participant. Responses were analysed using a mixed logit model.ResultsThe logit model revealed a large alternative-specific constant (β = 1.385, SE = 0.067, p ConclusionsThe results indicated that the existing configuration of the UK’s mass vaccination programme was well-placed to deliver vaccines to 18-29-year-olds; however, some adjustments might enhance acceptance. Local pharmacies were not preferred; long travel times were a disincentive but close proximity (0-15 minutes from one’s premises) was not necessary; and either the ‘NHS’ or ‘Your GP’ would serve as adequate invitation sources. This research informed COVID-19 policy in the UK, and contributes to a wider body of Discrete Choice Experiment evidence on citizens’ preferences, requirements and predicted behaviours regarding COVID-19.

ObjectivesIndividuals who receive a negative lateral flow coronavirus (Covid-19) test result may misunderstand it as meaning ‘no risk of infectiousness’, giving false reassurance. This experiment tested the impact of adding information to negative test result messages about (a) residual risk and (b) need to continue protective behaviours.Design4 (residual risk) × 2 (post-test result behaviours) between-subjects design.SettingOnline.Participants1200 adults from a representative UK sample recruited via Prolific (12-15 March 2021).InterventionsParticipants were randomly allocated to one of eight messages. Residual risk messages were: 1) ‘Your coronavirus test result is negative’ (control); 2) Message 1 plus ‘It’s likely you were not infectious when the test was done’ (Current NHS Test & Trace); 3) Message 2 plus ‘But there is still a chance you may be infectious’ (Elaborated NHS T&T); 4) Message 3 plus infographic depicting residual risk (Elaborated NHS T&T + infographic). Each message contained either no additional information or information about behaviour, i.e. the need to continue following guidelines and protective behaviours.Outcome measures(i) proportion understanding residual risk of infectiousness and (ii) likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours (score range 0-7).ResultsThe control message decreased understanding relative to the current NHS T&T message: 54% vs 71% (AOR=0.37 95% CI [0.22, 0.61], pppF(1,1192)=0.43, p=.513), being high (M=6.4, SD=0.9) across the sample.ConclusionsThe addition of a single sentence (‘But there is still a chance you may be infectious’) to current NHS Test & Trace wording increased understanding of the residual risk of infection.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework: https://osf.io/byfz3/

Background Large-scale vaccination is fundamental to combatting COVID-19. In March 2021, the UK’s vaccination programme had delivered vaccines to large proportions of older and more vulnerable population groups; however, there was concern that uptake would be lower among young people. This research was designed to elicit the preferences of 18–29-year-olds regarding key delivery characteristics and assess the influence of these on intentions to get vaccinated, to inform planning for this cohort. Methods From 25 March to 2 April 2021, an online sample of 2012 UK adults aged 18–29 years participated in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Participants made six choices, each involving two SMS invitations to book a vaccination appointment and an opt-out. Invitations had four attributes (1 × 5 levels, 3 × 3 levels): delivery mode, appointment timing, proximity, and sender. These were systematically varied according to a d-optimal design. Responses were analysed using a mixed logit model. Results The main effects logit model revealed a large alternative-specific constant (β = 1.385, SE = 0.067, p p p p p = 0.028). Conclusions The results indicated that the existing configuration of the UK’s vaccination programme was well-placed to deliver vaccines to 18–29-year-olds; however, some adjustments might enhance acceptance. Local pharmacies were not preferred; long travel times were a disincentive but close proximity (0–15 min from one’s premises) was not necessary; and either the ‘NHS’ or ‘Your GP’ would serve as adequate invitation sources. This research informed COVID-19 policy in the UK, and contributes to a wider body of Discrete Choice Experiment evidence on citizens’ preferences, requirements and predicted behaviours regarding COVID-19.

Mathematical modelling is an important public health tool for aiding understanding the spread of respiratory infectious diseases, such as influenza or COVID-19, and for quantifying the effects of behavioural interventions. However, such models rarely explicitly appeals to theories of human behaviour to justify model assumptions. Here we propose a novel mathematical model of disease transmission via fomites (luggage trays) at airport security screening during an outbreak. Our model incorporates the self-protective behaviour of using hand sanitiser gel in line with the extended parallel processing model (EPPM) of behaviour.We find that changing model assumptions of human behaviour in line with the EPPM gives qualitatively different results on the optimal placement of hand sanitiser gels within an airport compared to the model with naive behavioural assumptions. Specifically, that it is preferable to place hand sanitiser gels after luggage screening in most scenarios, however in situations where individuals perceive high threat and low efficacy this strategy may need to be reviewed. This model demonstrates how existing behavioural theories can be incorporated into mathematical models of infectious disease.

Observing the world on a global scale can help us understand better the context of problems that engage us all. In this paper, we propose a data-driven global observatory that puts together the different perspectives of media, science, statistics and sensing over heterogeneous data sources and text mining algorithms. We also discuss the implementation of this global observatory in the context of epidemic intelligence, monitoring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the context of climate change, with a specific focus on water resource management. We will also discuss the value of this global solution in local contexts and priorities.

ObjectivesTo understand the experiences of those who underwent supported isolation as part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, after returning to the UK from Wuhan, China.DesignWe used semi-structured interviews to capture participants’ experiences and perceptions of supported isolation.SettingTelephone interviews carried out within approximately one month of an individual leaving supported isolation.Participants26 people who underwent supported isolation at either Arrowe Park Hospital (n = 18) or Kents Hill Park Conference Centre (n = 8) after being repatriated from Wuhan in January – February 2020.ResultsParticipants were willing to undergo supported isolation because they understood that it would protect themselves and others. Positive treatment by staff was fundamental to participants’ willingness to comply with isolation procedures. Despite the high level of compliance, participants expressed some uncertainty about what the process would involve.ConclusionsAs hotel quarantine is introduced across the UK for international arrivals, our findings suggest that those in charge should: communicate effectively before, during and after quarantine, emphasising why quarantine is important and how it will protect others; avoid enforcement and focus on supporting and promoting voluntary compliance; facilitate shared social experiences for those in quarantine; and ensure all necessary supplies are provided. Doing so will increase adherence and reduce any negative effects on wellbeing.

BackgroundIntensive Care Unit (ICU), anaesthetic and theatres staff have faced significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic which have the potential to adversely affect their mental healthAimsTo identify the rates of probable mental health disorder in ICU and anaesthetic staff in six English hospitals during June and July 2020MethodsAn anonymised brief web-based survey comprising standardised questionnaires examining depression, anxiety symptoms, symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), wellbeing and alcohol use was administered to staff.Results709 participants completed the surveys comprising 291 (41%) doctors, 344 (48.5%) nurses, and 74 (10.4%) other healthcare staff. Over half (58.8%) reported good wellbeing, however 45.4% met the threshold for probable clinical significance on at least one of the following measures: severe depression (6.3%), PTSD (39.5%), severe anxiety (11.3%) or problem drinking (7.2%). 13.4% of respondents reported frequent thoughts of being better off dead, or of hurting themselves in the past two weeks. We found that doctors consistently reported better mental health than nurses.ConclusionsWe found substantial rates of probable mental health disorders, and thoughts of self-harm, amongst ICU staff; these difficulties were especially prevalent in nurses. These results indicate the need for a national strategy to protect the mental health, and decrease the risk of functional impairment, of ICU staff whilst they carry out their essential work during COVID-19.Occ Med Statements: article should contain 3 statements (each max of 3 bullets of max 50 words each)What is already known about this subjectIntensive care unit (ICU) staff are regularly exposed to traumatic situations as part of their jobPrevious studies have shown them to be at risk of psychological and moral distressLittle is known about the mental health of ICU staff during the current pandemicWhat this study addsAlmost half of ICU staff report symptoms consistent with a probable diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder, severe depression or anxiety or problem drinkingAround 1 in 7 ICU staff report recent thoughts of self-harm or of wanting to be better off deadNursing staff are more likely to report higher levels of distress than doctors or other clinical staffWhat impact this may have on practice or policyHealthcare managers need to prioritise staff mental health support and timely access to evidence based treatments for ICU staffSupervisors and managers should be aware that a substantial proportion of ICU staff may perform less well because of their current poor state of mental healthMore work is needed to understand whether the high levels of mental health symptoms identified in this study are truly indicative of high levels of clinical need for mental healthcare