Search

Background: Despite greater sensitivity of vaginal swabs compared to urine for detection of STIs and high acceptability in clinical settings, acceptability and feasibility of home-based self-collected vaginal swabs for research are less certain. We undertook development work to test these attributes for self-collected vaginal swabs for Natsal-4, a probability sample, interviewer-administered, survey of the ritish population aged 16-59 years. Methods: We conducted two pilot studies in 2021-22. After completing an interview, all participants identifying as cisgender women were invited to provide three self-collected vaginal swabs, with procedures for providing samples during or afte rface-to-face interviews or after remote interviews. Samples were posted to the laboratory. Consent was provided with the understanding of non-return of results. Participants declining vaginal swabs were invited to provide urine. Interviewers were not clinically trained. Qualitative follow-up interviews were conducted with participants and interviewers provided feedback. Results: Of the 153 cisgender women interviewed, 77 (50%) agreed to provide a vaginal swab, and 22 preferred to provide urine, resulting in an overall biosample consent rate of 65%. Of these, 60 swabs and 18 urine samples were received (Figure), resulting in an overall response of 51% (39% for vaginal swabs). Of the 77 who consented to provide swabs, 43 (56%) were during face-to-face interviews, of which 95% were received, compared to 13 (17%) agreeing to collection after face-to-face with 54% received, and 21 (27%) choosing remote interviews with 57% received. Fourteen participants (10 provided swabs) gave follow-up interviews and seven interviewers provided feedback. Participants conveyed their motivation to support research by giving samples. Interviewers were surprised at participants’ willingness to provide swabs. Reasons for not providing a swab included the belief that it was uncomfortable, too intimate or not relev

Objectives: To investigate how differential access to key interventions to reduce STIs, HIV and their sequelae changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: British participants (18-59 years) completed a cross-sectional web survey 1 year (March-April 2021) after the initial lockdown in Britain. Quota-based sampling and weighting resulted in a quasi-representative population sample. We compared Natsal-COVID data with Natsal-3, a household-based probability sample cross-sectional survey (16-74 years) conducted in 2010-2012. Reported unmet need for condoms because of the pandemic and uptake of chlamydia testing/HIV testing/cervical cancer screening were analysed among sexually experienced participants (18-44 years) (n=3869, Natsal-COVID; n=8551, Natsal-3). ORs adjusted for age and other potential confounders describe associations with demographic and behavioural factors. Results: In 2021, 6.9% of women and 16.2% of men reported unmet need for condoms because of the pandemic. This was more likely among participants: aged 18-24 years, of black or black British ethnicity, and reporting same-sex sex (past 5 years) or one or more new relationships (past year). Chlamydia and HIV testing were more commonly reported by younger participants, those reporting condomless sex with new sexual partners and men reporting same-sex partners; a very similar distribution to 10 years previously (Natsal-3). However, there were differences during the pandemic, including stronger associations with chlamydia testing for men reporting same-sex partners; with HIV testing for women reporting new sexual partners and with cervical screening among smokers. Conclusions: Our study suggests differential access to key primary and secondary STI/HIV prevention interventions continued during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there was not strong evidence that differential access has changed during the pandemic when compared with 2010-2012. While the pandemic might not have exacerbated ineq, Funding agencies:UK Research & Innovation (UKRI)Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)UCL Coronavirus Response FundUK Research & Innovation (UKRI)Medical Research Council UK (MRC) MC_UU_00022/3 SPHSU18

Introduction: Use of condoms to prevent STIs/HIV and unplanned pregnancy remains important during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is unknown whether the pandemic affected condom access and which population groups were most impacted. Methods: 6658 participants (18-59y) completed a cross-sectional web survey one-year after the initial British lockdown from 23 March 2020. Quota-based sampling and weighting resulted in a sample that was quasi-representative of the British population. We report the prevalence of unmet need for condoms because of the pandemic among sexually-experienced participants aged 18-44 years (n=2869). Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) quantify associations with demographic and behavioural factors. Results: Overall, 6.9% of women and 16.2% of men reported unmet need for condoms in the past year because of the pandemic. This was more likely to be reported by participants who: were aged 18-24 years vs. 35-44 (AOR: men 2.25 [95%CI:1.26-4.01], women 2.95[1.42-6.16]); were Black or Black British vs. White (men 2.86 [1.45-5.66], women 1.93 [1.03-8.30]); reported same-sex sex vs. not (past five years; men 2.85 [1.68-4.86], women 5.00 [2.48-10.08]); or ≥1 new relationships vs. not (past year, men 5.85 [3.55-9.66], women 6.38 [3.24-12.59]). Men, but not women, reporting STI-related service use (past year) were more likely to report unmet need for condoms compared to men that did not report service use (3.83 [2.18-6.71]). Discussion: Unmet need for condoms because of the pandemic was more likely to be reported by populations at higher risk of adverse sexual health outcomes, including STI/HIV transmission. Improved access to free/low-cost condoms is crucial for all.

Introduction: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, STIs disproportionately affected some Black communities. We examined ethnic inequalities in sexual health during the pandemic. Methods: Analyses were restricted to England residents aged 18–59. We included 5,240 sexually-experienced participants from Natsal-COVID survey Wave 2 (quasi-representative web panel survey) reporting one-year outcomes from March 2020-April 2021. We estimated weighted proportions and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) between ethnicity and sexual risk behaviour (condomless sex with new partner on first occasion), sexual health service (SHS) use, and unmet need (trying but failing to access SHS). Using GUMCAD national surveillance data from before (March 2019-March 2020) and during (March 2020-March 2021) the pandemic, we compared proportional differences in rates of STI tests and diagnoses by ethnicity. Results: Compared to Natsal-COVID participants of White ethnicity, sexual risk behaviour (8%) was higher among participants of Mixed/Other (22%, AOR:2.26 [95% CI 1.08-4.73]) and Asian (15%, 1.58 [1.07-2.35]); SHS use (5%) was higher in Black (20%, 3.04 [1.75-5.28]) and Mixed/Other (20%, 2.64 [1.35-5.14]); and unmet need (2%) was higher in Black (11%, 5.01 [2.26-11.09]) and Asian (5%, 2.33 [1.11-4.90]) ethnicity. In GUMCAD, among people attending SHS, we observed similar reductions of around 50% in testing and diagnoses during the pandemic across different ethnic groups, although the greatest reduction was in people of Asian ethnicity (56% and 52% respectively). Discussion: Two independent national data sources showed sexual health inequalities persisted during the first year of the pandemic with evidence of more unmet need among minority ethnicities, but further work is needed to assess whether these worsened.

"This paper reports the design and outcomes of a pilot study for the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS), Understanding Society, to develop and test the feasibility of collection of biomarkers by trained non-clinical interviewers. Feasibility tests performance of procedures, that they are technically satisfactory and reasonable in relation to alternatives. The dimensions reported are recruitment and training of interviewers, completeness, acceptability and time required for data collection, and quality of the biological samples. Some comparisons are made with measures conducted by nurses in wave 2 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study, Understanding Society. Biomeasures included anthropometrics, blood pressure, grip strength and the collection of saliva and dried blood spots. We implemented measurement protocols, introduced training and certification of interviewers, who then collected data from 92 participants. The study produced information about duration of collection, participation and quality of blood and saliva samples. The pilot study informs the design decisions about the biosocial component of Understanding Society." (publisher's description)