Search

Background: Participant involvement in research studies is not a new concept, yet barriers to implementation remain and application varies. This is particularly true for pandemic response research studies, where timeframes are condensed, pressure is high and the value and inclusion of participant involvement can be overlooked. The SIREN Participant Involvement Panel (PIP) provides a case study for participant involvement in pandemic research, working in partnership with people who the research is for and about. Methods: SIREN and the British Society for Immunology (BSI) recruited and ran two phases of the PIP, involving 15 members in total over a 16-month period. Phase 1 ran between January and August 2022 and Phase 2 between October 2022 and March 2023. Activity figures including recruitment interest and PIP meeting attendance were recorded. To evaluate how the PIP has influenced SIREN, feedback was collected from (a) researchers presenting at the PIP and (b) PIP members themselves. Evaluation at the end of Phase 1 informed our approach to Phase 2. Thematic grouping was planned to identify key lessons learned. Results: Applications increased from n = 30 to n = 485 between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the PIP, a more than 15-fold increase. The SIREN PIP positively impacted the design, implementation and evaluation phases of the study and sub-studies. Feedback from PIP members themselves was positive, with members highlighting that they found the role rewarding and felt valued. Learnings from the PIP have been condensed into five key themes for applying to future pandemic response research studies: the importance of dedicated resources; recruiting the right panel; understanding motivations for participant involvement; providing flexible options for involvement and enabling the early involvement of participants. Conclusions: The SIREN PIP has demonstrated the value of actively involving people who research is for and about. The PIP has provided an active feedback mechanism for research and demonstrated a positive influence on both SIREN study researchers and PIP members themselves. This paper makes the case for participant involvement in future pandemic research studies. Future work should include improved training for researchers and we would support the development of a national PIP forum as part of future pandemic research preparedness. Plain English summary: The SARS-Cov2 Immunity & Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study was set-up at speed during the early stages of the pandemic to help answer key questions about COVID-19 and inform the national pandemic response. It has provided valuable insight into COVID-19 infections, reinfections, and how well the vaccines work. SIREN helped to find these answers by regularly testing over 44,000 healthcare staff working at 135 NHS organisations. To support participant retention, SIREN established a Participant Involvement Panel (PIP) involving 15 SIREN participants to date. PIP members provide guidance and feedback to SIREN researchers on key research priorities, changes to the study and strategies for maximising participant engagement. This paper provides insight into how the PIP was set-up, run and the resources required from the perspective of the PIP and SIREN researchers. Lessons learned from establishing the PIP are summarised to help inform future pandemic response research studies. The paper adds to the evidence base, and makes the case for, the valuable role participant involvement can play in pandemic response research studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diaries and other materials in the Mass Observation Archive have been characterised as intersubjective and dialogic. They have been used to study top-down and bottom-up processes, including how ordinary people respond to sociological constructs and, more broadly, the footprint of social science in the 20th century. In this article, we use the Archive's COVID-19 collections to study how attempts to govern the pandemic by mobilising ordinary people to see like an epidemiologist played out in the United Kingdom during 2020. People were asked to think in terms of populations and groups; rates, trends, and distributions; the capacity of public services; and complex systems of causation. How did they respond? How did they use the statistics, charts, maps, concepts, identities, and roles they were given? We find evidence of engagement with science plural ; confident and comfortable engagement with epidemiological terms and concepts; sceptical and reluctant engagement with epidemiological subject positions; use of both scientific and moral literacy to negotiate regulations and guidance; and use of scientific literacy to compare and judge government performance. Governing the pandemic through scientific literacy was partially successful, but in some unexpected ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe how COVID-19-related policy decisions and guidelines impacted healthcare workers (HCWs) during the UK's first COVID-19 pandemic phase. Guidelines in healthcare aim to streamline processes, improve quality and manage risk. However, we argue that during this time the guidelines we studied often fell short of these goals in practice. We analysed 74 remote interviews with 14 UK HCWs over 6 months (February–August 2020). Reframing guidelines through Mol's lens of 'enactment', we reveal embodied, relational and material impacts that some guidelines had for HCWs. Beyond guideline 'adherence', we show that enacting guidelines is an ongoing, complex process of negotiating and balancing multilevel tensions. Overall, guidelines: (1) were inconsistently communicated; (2) did not sufficiently accommodate contextual considerations; and (3) were at times in tension with HCWs' values. Healthcare policymakers should produce more agile, acceptable guidelines that frontline HCWs can enact in ways which make sense and are effective in their contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The issue of how emergency services (police, fire, ambulance, local authorities) respond to pandemics has received greater research focus recently in relation to the COVID-19 outbreak, which saw agencies going beyond usual roles to support communities for prolonged periods. A critical appraisal is needed of this published evidence to take stock of what is known about the effectiveness of emergency service response to Covid-19., Method: A scoping review of scientific and grey literature identified 17 qualitative (N = 9), quantitative (N = 6), or mixed methods (N = 2) studies from across the UK and internationally that focus on the effectiveness of emergency service response to the Covid-19 outbreak. A narrative review was conducted using an interpretive approach. Papers were read, summarised, and then sorted into inductive themes that addressed some aspect of the review question. Eight critical themes emerged from the narrative review., Results: Across countries, emergency services were required to quickly adapt working practices to reduce spread of infection, support partner agencies facing unprecedented demands, and make effective use of limited resources. Use of technology, access to timely, accurate and relevant information, strong leadership, prior experience, and emergency training were critical to this. However, most research is descriptive rather than evaluative., Conclusions: Overall, findings highlight the need for further research that examines what mechanisms facilitate and hinder emergency response to pandemics. This scoping review provides a knowledge framework for informing future research that can support emergency services in preparing for events of national and international significance., (© 2024 The Authors. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In March 2020, the outbreak of COVID‐19 was officially declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. Given the novelty of the virus, and hence, lack of official guidance on effective containment strategies, individual countries opted for different containment approaches ranging from herd immunity to strict lockdown. The opposing strategies followed by the United Kingdom and its former colony, Malaysia, stand exemplary for this. Real‐time polymerase chain reaction was implemented for testing in both counties. Malaysia acted with strict quarantining rules and infection surveillance. The United Kingdom followed an initially lenient, herd‐immunity approach with strict lockdown only enforced weeks later. Although based on the same health‐care structure historically, Malaysia developed a more unified health system compared with the United Kingdom. We suggest that this more centralized structure could be one possible explanation for why Malaysia was able to react in a more timely and efficient manner, despite its closer geographic proximity to China. We further explore how the differences in testing and quarantining strategy, as well as political situation and societal compliance could account for the discrepancy in the United Kingdom's versus Malaysia's relative success of COVID‐19 containment. Key Points: 1.Different countries employed a range of strategies toward the COVID‐19 pandemic, with varying levels of success.2.Malaysia's strict rule enforcement were reflected both in quantitative and qualitative terms.3.Despite the closer geographical proximity to the source of the outbreak, Malaysia fared better than the United Kingdom in its response to the pandemic, suggesting that there are valuable lessons to be learned for the developed from developing, limited‐resource countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the UK's pre-COVID 19 pandemic preparedness and its early response to the COVID-19 pandemic (January '20 - March '20). The aim of this article is to explain the high excess mortality the UK experienced compared to many of its international and European peers in the first wave, which is contrary to the country's high ranking in pre-COVID-19 preparedness rankings. The article assesses the various components of pre-COVID-19 pandemic preparedness such as pandemic strategy, exercises, and stockpiles, and it covers government decision making processes on the early response, including questions around post-travel quarantining, test and trace, and mobility restrictions. The article concludes that there were important deficiencies in the UK's pandemic preparedness and early response in the COVID-19 pandemic. These include the centrality of the 'inevitability of spread'-assumption underpinning the UK's pandemic planning pre-COVID, the insufficient implementation of pandemic exercise recommendations, the lack of early and 'live learning' from other countries' experiences, the lack of adoption of public health advice of the World Health Organisation early on, the late implementation of internal mobility restrictions, the lack of timely consideration of alternative early pandemic response models, and fragilities in the SAGE/governmental interplay.