Search

BackgroundConsumers with food hypersensitivies need information about allergens when dining out, but may be dissuaded from seeking it. Following on from a successful feasibility trial, the Food Standards Agency commissioned the Behavioural Practice to run a full randomised controlled trial, to test whether Food Business Operator (FBO) staff proactively asking about allergens would increase customers’ confidence that they have the information they need, comfort to ask next time, and their perceptions of food safety.MethodsWe ran a cluster RCT with a matched pairs design to test the efficacy of proactive allergens information communication in 18 branches of a national FBO. Staff in half of those branches were told to ask “Do you have any food allergies or intolerances?” before customers placed their order. Staff in the other half of the branches carried on with usual practice. Participants were customers who entered the FBO from 28th March to 30th June 2022, who placed a food order at the till, and who chose to complete a voluntary survey about their experience.ResultsThere were 395 completed surveys in the treatment arm and 541 in the control arm, of which 154 surveys in the treatment arm and 376 in the control arm received the correct intervention for their arm and were entered into our pre-registered per protocol analysis. Results showed that proactively asking about customer’s food hypersensitivities increased their confidence in their ability to avoid ingredients (β = 0.26, p < 0.01) and comfort asking about ingredients on a future visit (β = 0.36, p < 0.001). However, the intervention did not have an effect on customers’ level of concern regarding the safety of the food that is sold in the FBO (β = -0.02, p = 0.920). The intervention also led to increased customer satisfaction on three metrics.ConclusionsProactively asking about allergens can increase customers’ confidence that they have the information they need and comfort to ask next time, while also increasing satisfaction in the food business, but it did not increase perceptions of food safety.

Misinformation can have a profound detrimental impact on populations’ wellbeing. In this large UK-based online experiment (n = 2430), we assessed the performance of false tag and inoculation interventions in protecting against different forms of misinformation (‘variants’). While previous experiments have used perception- or intention-based outcome measures, we presented participants with real-life misinformation posts in a social media platform simulation and measured their engagement, a more ecologically valid approach. Our pre-registered mixed-effects models indicated that both interventions reduced engagement with misinformation, but inoculation was most effective. However, random differences analysis revealed that the protection conferred by inoculation differed across posts. Moderation analysis indicated that immunity provided by inoculation is robust to variation in individuals’ cognitive reflection. This study provides novel evidence on the general effectiveness of inoculation interventions over false tags, social media platforms’ current approach. Given inoculation’s effect heterogeneity, a concert of interventions will likely be required for future safeguarding efforts.

Sometimes we make a decision about an action we will undertake later and form an intention, but our judgment of what it is best to do undergoes a temporary shift when the time for action comes round. What makes it rational not to give in to temptation? Many contemporary solutions privilege diachronic rationality; in some “rational non-reconsideration” (RNR) accounts once the agent forms an intention, it is rational not to reconsider. This leads to other puzzles: how can someone be motivated to follow a plan that is contrary to their current judgment? How can it be rational to form a plan to resist if we can predict that our judgment will shift? I show how these puzzles can be solved in a framework where there are multiple units of agency, distinguishing between the judgments of the timeslice and those of the person over time, and allowing that the timeslice can “self identify”, taking the person over time as the relevant unit of agency and doing intrapersonal team reasoning (with a different causal role for intentions than RNR accounts). On my account, resisting temptation is compatible with synchronic rationality, so synchronic and diachronic rationality are aligned. However, either resisting or succumbing to temptation can be instrumentally rational, depending on the unit of agency that is identified with. In order to show why we ought to resist temptation, we need to draw on a non-instrumental rationale. I sketch possible routes for doing this.

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.

Online supermarket platforms present an opportunity for encouraging healthier consumer purchases. A parallel, double-blind randomised controlled trial tested whether promoting healthier products (e.g. lower fat and lower calorie) on the Sainsbury's online supermarket platform would increase purchases of those products. Participants were Nectar loyalty membership scheme cardholders who shopped online with Sainsbury's between 20th September and 10th October 2017. Intervention arm customers saw advertisement banners and recipe ingredient lists containing healthier versions of the products presented in control arm banners and ingredient lists. The primary outcome measure was purchases of healthier products. Additional outcome measures were banner clicks, purchases of standard products, overall purchases and energy (kcal) purchased. Sample sizes were small due to customers navigating the website differently than expected. The intervention encouraged purchases of some promoted healthier products (spaghetti [B = 2.10, p < 0.001], spaghetti sauce [B = 2.06, p < 0.001], spaghetti cheese [B = 2.45, p = 0.001], sour cream [B = 2.52, p < 0.001], fajita wraps [B = 2.10, p < 0.001], fajita cheese [B = 1.19, p < 0.001], bakery aisle products (B = 3.05, p = 0.003) and cola aisle products [B = 0.97, p < 0.002]) but not others (spaghetti mince, or products in the yogurt and ice cream aisles). There was little evidence of effects on banner clicks and energy purchased. Small sample sizes may affect the robustness of these findings. We discuss the benefits of collaborating to share expertise and implement a trial in a live commercial environment, alongside key learnings for future collaborative research in similar contexts.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The UK low-risk drinking guidelines (LRDG) recommend not regularly drinking more than 14 units of alcohol per week. We tested the effect of different pictorial representations of alcohol content, some with a health warning, on knowledge of the LRDG and understanding of how many drinks it equates to. DESIGN: Parallel randomized controlled trial. SETTING: On-line, 25 January-1 February 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n = 7516) were English, aged over 18 years and drink alcohol. INTERVENTIONS: The control group saw existing industry-standard labels; six intervention groups saw designs based on: food labels (serving or serving and container), pictographs (servings or containers), pie charts (servings) or risk gradients. A total of 500 participants (~70 per condition) saw a health warning under the design. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes: (i) knowledge: proportion who answered that the LRDG is 14 units; and (ii) understanding: how many servings/containers of beverages one can drink before reaching 14 units (10 questions, average distance from correct answer). FINDINGS: In the control group, 21.5% knew the LRDG; proportions were higher in intervention groups (all P

Food products have significant impacts on the environment over their life cycle. We investigated whether displaying products in ascending order of carbon footprint in an online supermarket environment can shift consumer choices towards more sustainable options. We examined whether the effect of the ordering intervention differs when the ordering is overt (information about the ordering is explicit), compared to when it is covert (participants not told about the ordering). We conducted a three-arm parallel-group randomised trial using 1842 online participants from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Participants shopped for a meal, choosing one product from each of six product categories in a simulated online supermarket. Six products were listed vertically on each product-category page. Products were randomly ordered for the control arm but ordered by carbon footprint in the covert and overt ordering arms. In the overt ordering arm, a statement was displayed at the top of each product page about the ordering of products. The primary outcome was whether one of the three most sustainable products was chosen in each product category. There was no effect of the covert ordering on the probability of choosing more sustainable products compared with the control arm (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07, p = 0.533). Furthermore, we did not find evidence that the effects of the covert ordering and overt ordering differed (p = 0.594). Within the control condition, products in different positions were chosen with similar frequencies, suggesting that product positioning does not have an impact on choices. This may explain why re-ordering products had no effect. In the overt condition, only 19.5% of people correctly answered that the products were ordered according to sustainability in a follow-up question, suggesting that they didn't notice the statement. Results suggest that choices for grocery products might be too ingrained to be changed by subtle rearrangements of choice architecture like the ordering interventions, and highlight the difficulty of conveying information effectively to consumers in the online grocery shopping environment.

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/

BackgroundThere is a need to reduce antimicrobial uses in humans. Previous studies have found variations in antibiotic (AB) prescribing between practices in primary care. This study assessed variability of AB prescribing between clinicians.MethodsClinical Practice Research Datalink, which collects electronic health records in primary care, was used to select anonymised clinicians providing 500+ consultations during 2012–2017. Eight measures of AB prescribing were assessed, such as overall and incidental AB prescribing, repeat AB courses and extent of risk-based prescribing. Poisson regression models with random effect for clinicians were fitted.Results6111 clinicians from 466 general practices were included. Considerable variability between individual clinicians was found for most AB measures. For example, the rate of AB prescribing varied between 77.4 and 350.3 per 1000 consultations; percentage of repeat AB courses within 30 days ranged from 13.1% to 34.3%; predicted patient risk of hospital admission for infection-related complications in those prescribed AB ranged from 0.03% to 0.32% (5th and 95th percentiles). The adjusted relative rate between clinicians in rates of AB prescribing was 5.23. Weak correlation coefficients (ConclusionsThe wide variation seen in all measures of AB prescribing and weak correlation between them suggests that a single AB measure, such as prescribing rate, is not sufficient to underpin the optimisation of AB prescribing.

Aim The Chief Medical Officer of England writes an annual social-norms-feedback letter to the highest antibiotic-prescribing GP practices. We investigated whether sending a social-norms-feedback letter to practices whose prescribing was increasing would reduce prescribing. Subject and methods We conducted a two-armed randomised controlled trial amongst practices whose STAR-PU-adjusted prescribing was in the 20th–95th percentiles and had increased by > 4% year-on-year in the 2 previous financial years. Intervention practices received a letter on 1st March 2018 stating ‘The great majority (80%) of practices in England reduced or stabilised their antibiotic prescribing rates in 2016/17. However, your practice is in the minority that have increased their prescribing by more than 4%.’. Control practices received no letter. The primary outcome was the STAR-PU-adjusted rate of antibiotic prescribing in the months from March to September 2018. Results We randomly assigned 930 practices; ten closed or merged pre-trial, leaving 920 practices — 448 in the intervention and 472 in the control. An autoregressive and moving average model of first order ARMA(1,1) correlation structure showed no effect of the intervention (β , z = −0.50, p = 0.565). Prescribing reduced over time in both arms (β , z = −36.36, p Conclusions A social-norms-feedback letter to practices whose prescribing was increasing did not decrease prescribing compared to no letter. Trial registration NCT03582072.

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.

BackgroundPublic Health England wants to increase the uptake of the NHS Health Check (NHSHC), a cardiovascular disease prevention programme. Most invitations are sent by letter, but opportunistic invitations may be issued and verbal invitations have a higher rate of uptake. Prompting staff to issue opportunistic invitations might increase uptake.AimTo assess the effect on uptake of automated prompts to clinical staff to invite patients to NHSHC, delivered via primary care computer systems.Design and settingPseudo-randomised controlled trial of patients eligible for the NHSHC attending GP practices in Southwark, London.MethodEligible patients were allocated into one of two conditions, (a) Prompt and (b) No Prompt, to clinical staff. The primary outcome was attendance at an NHSHC.ResultsFifteen of 43 (34.88%) practices in Southwark were recruited; 7564 patients were eligible for an NHSHC, 3778 (49.95%) in the control and 3786 (50.05%) in the intervention. Attendance in the intervention arm was 454 (12.09%) compared with 280 (7.41%) in the control group, a total increase of 4.58% (OR = 2.28; 95% CI = 1.46 to 3.55; PP = 0.004), with the intervention primarily effective on males. Comparing the probabilities of attendance for each age category across intervention and control suggests that the intervention was primarily effective for younger patients.ConclusionPrompts on computer systems in general practice were effective at improving the uptake of the NHSHC, especially for males and younger patients.

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.

ObjectiveTo develop evidence of work-related and personal predictors of COVID-19 transmission.Setting and respondentsData are drawn from a population survey of individuals in the USA and UK conducted in June 2020.Background methodsRegression models are estimated for 1467 individuals in which reported evidence of infection depends on work-related factors as well as a variety of personal controls.ResultsThe following themes emerge from the analysis. First, a range of work-related factors are significant sources of variation in COVID-19 infection as indicated by self-reports of medical diagnosis or symptoms. This includes evidence about workplace types, consultation about safety and union membership. The partial effect of transport-related employment in regression models makes the chance of infection over three times more likely while in univariate analyses, transport-related work increases the risk of infection by over 40 times in the USA. Second, there is evidence that some home-related factors are significant predictors of infection, most notably the sharing of accommodation or a kitchen. Third, there is some evidence that behavioural factors and personal traits (including risk preference, extraversion and height) are also important.ConclusionsThe paper concludes that predictors of transmission relate to work, transport, home and personal factors. Transport-related work settings are by far the greatest source of risk and so should be a focus of prevention policies. In addition, surveys of the sort developed in this paper are an important source of information on transmission pathways within the community.

Background: A rigorous approach is needed to inform rapid adaptation and optimisation of behavioral interventions in evolving public health contexts, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. This helps ensure that interventions are relevant, persuasive, and feasible while remaining evidence-based. This paper provides a set of iterative methods to rapidly adapt and optimize an intervention during implementation. These methods are demonstrated through the example of optimizing an effective online handwashing intervention called Germ Defense.Methods: Three revised versions of the intervention were rapidly optimized and launched within short timeframes of 1–2 months. Optimisations were informed by: regular stakeholder engagement; emerging scientific evidence, and changing government guidance; rapid qualitative research (telephone think-aloud interviews and open-text surveys), and analyses of usage data. All feedback was rapidly collated, using the Table of Changes method from the Person-Based Approach to prioritize potential optimisations in terms of their likely impact on behavior change. Written feedback from stakeholders on each new iteration of the intervention also informed specific optimisations of the content.Results: Working closely with clinical stakeholders ensured that the intervention was clinically accurate, for example, confirming that information about transmission and exposure was consistent with evidence. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors identified important clarifications to intervention content, such as whether Covid-19 can be transmitted via air as well as surfaces, and ensured that information about difficult behaviors (such as self-isolation) was supportive and feasible. Iterative updates were made in line with emerging evidence, including changes to the information about face-coverings and opening windows. Qualitative research provided insights into barriers to engaging with the intervention and target behaviors, with open-text surveys providing a useful supplement to detailed think-aloud interviews. Usage data helped identify common points of disengagement, which guided decisions about optimisations. The Table of Changes was modified to facilitate rapid collation and prioritization of multiple sources of feedback to inform optimisations. Engagement with PPI informed the optimisation process.Conclusions: Rapid optimisation methods of this kind may in future be used to help improve the speed and efficiency of adaptation, optimization, and implementation of interventions, in line with calls for more rapid, pragmatic health research methods.

Background:The NHS Health Check (NHS HC) is a cardiovascular risk assessment to prevent cardiovascular disease. Public Health England (PHE) wants to increase uptake. Methods:We explored the impact of behaviourally informed invitation letters and pre-notification and reminder SMS on uptake of NHS HCs. Patients at 28 General Practices in the London Borough of Southwark who were eligible to receive an NHS HC between 1st November 2013 and 31st December 2014 were included. A double-blind randomised controlled trial with a mixed 2 (pre-notification SMS – yes or no) × 4 (letter – national template control, open-ended, time-limited, social norm) × 2 (reminder SMS – yes or no) factorial design was used. The open-ended letter used simplification, behavioural instruction and a personalised planning prompt for patients to record the date and time of their NHS HC. The time-limited letter was similar but stated the NHS HC was due in a named forthcoming month. The social norms letter was similar to the open-ended letter but included a descriptive social norms message and testimonials from local residents and no planning prompt. The outcome measure was attendance at an NHS HC. Results:Data for 12, 244 invites were analysed. Uptake increased in almost all letter and SMS combinations compared to the control letter without SMS (Uptake 18%), with increases of up to 12 percentage points for the time-limited letter with pre-notification and reminder (Uptake 30%; Adjusted Odds Ratio AOR 1.86; 95% CI 1.45–2.83;p p 0.00) and a 9 percentage point increase using the time-limited letter with reminder (Uptake 27%; AOR 1.61; 95% CI 1.25–2.10;p < 0.00). The reminder SMS increased uptake for all intervention letters. The pre-notification did not add to this effect. Conclusions:This large randomised controlled trial adds support to the evidence that small, low cost behaviourally informed changes to letter-based invitations can increase uptake of NHS HCs. It also provides novel evidence on the effect of SMS reminders and pre-notification on NHS HC attendance. Trial registration:Retrospectively Registered (24/01/2014)ISRCTN36027094.

In the UK, 81% of all antibiotics are prescribed in primary care. Previous research has shown that a letter from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) giving social norms feedback to General Practitioners (GPs) whose practices are high prescribers of antibiotics can decrease antibiotic prescribing. The aim of this study was to understand the best way for engaging with GPs to deliver feedback on prescribing behaviour that could be replicated at scale, and explore GP information requirements that would be needed to support prescribing behaviour change. Two workshops were devised utilising a participatory approach. Discussion points were noted and agreed with each group of participants. Minutes of the workshops and observation notes were taken. Data were analysed thematically. Four key themes emerged through the data analysis: (1) Our day-to-day reality, (2) GPs are competitive, (3) Face-to-face support, and (4) Empowerment and engagement. Our findings suggest there is potential for using behavioural science in the form of social norms as part of a range of engagement strategies in reducing antibiotic prescribing within primary care. This should include tailored and localised data with peer-to-peer comparisons.

Background To control the COVID-19 pandemic, people should adopt protective behaviors at home (self-isolation, social distancing, putting shopping and packages aside, wearing face coverings, cleaning and disinfecting, and handwashing). There is currently limited support to help individuals conduct these behaviors. Objective This study aims to report current household infection control behaviors in the United Kingdom and examine how they might be improved. Methods This was a pragmatic cross-sectional observational study of anonymous participant data from Germ Defence between May 6-24, 2020. Germ Defence is an open-access fully automated website providing behavioral advice for infection control within households. A total of 28,285 users sought advice from four website pathways based on household status (advice to protect themselves generally, to protect others if the user was showing symptoms, to protect themselves if household members were showing symptoms, and to protect a household member who is at high risk). Users reported current infection control behaviors within the home and intentions to change these behaviors. Results Current behaviors varied across all infection control measures but were between sometimes (face covering: mean 1.61, SD 1.19; social distancing: mean 2.40, SD 1.22; isolating: mean 2.78, SD 1.29; putting packages and shopping aside: mean 2.75, SD 1.55) and quite often (cleaning and disinfecting: mean 3.17, SD 1.18), except for handwashing (very often: mean 4.00, SD 1.03). Behaviors were similar regardless of the website pathway used. After using Germ Defence, users recorded intentions to improve infection control behavior across all website pathways and for all behaviors (overall average infection control score mean difference 0.30, 95% CI 0.29-0.31). Conclusions Self-reported infection control behaviors other than handwashing are lower than is optimal for infection prevention, although handwashing is much higher. Advice using behavior change techniques in Germ Defence led to intentions to improve these behaviors. Promoting Germ Defence within national and local public health and primary care guidance could reduce COVID-19 transmission.

The newspapers are filled with headlines about R numbers, excess mortality, and saving the economy versus saving lives. [...]Roemer’s agents want to do the right thing, provided that they expect that others will act in a like manner. Roemer uses a variant of the game where the players get a strictly positive utility if they go to their preferred event alone, though less than they would get from going to either event together (see Fig. 2b). [...]Roemer shows that the mixed-strategy SKE (where the players assign each strategy a strictly positive probability and then randomize over them according to those probabilities) strictly dominates the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium, basically because the Kantian optimizers are willing to compromise more and go to the other player’s preferred activity with a higher probability.

BackgroundDigital interventions have potential to efficiently support improved hygiene practices to reduce transmission of COVID-19.ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence for digital interventions to improve hygiene practices within the community.MethodsWe reviewed articles published between 01 January 2000 and 26 May 2019 that presented a controlled trial of a digital intervention to improve hygiene behaviours in the community. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and grey literature. Trials in hospitals were excluded, as were trials aiming at prevention of sexually transmitted infections; only target diseases with transmission mechanisms similar to COVID-19 (e.g. respiratory and gastrointestinal infections) were included. Trials had to evaluate a uniquely digital component of an intervention. Study designs were limited to randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after trials, and interrupted time series analyses. Outcomes could be either incidence of infections or change in hygiene behaviours. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess study quality.ResultsWe found seven studies that met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported successfully improving self-reported hygiene behaviour or health outcomes, but only one of these six trials confirmed improvements using objective measures (reduced consultations and antibiotic prescriptions), Germ Defence. Settings included kindergartens, workplaces, and service station restrooms. Modes of delivery were diverse: WeChat, website, text messages, audio messages to mobiles, electronic billboards, and electronic personal care records. Four interventions targeted parents of young children with educational materials. Two targeted the general population; these also used behaviour change techniques or theory to inform the intervention. Only one trial had low risk of bias, Germ Defence; the most common concerns were lack of information about the randomisation, possible bias in reporting of behavioural outcomes, and lack of an analysis plan and possible selective reporting of results.ConclusionThere was only one intervention that was judged to be at low risk of bias, Germ Defence, which reduced incidence and severity of illness, as confirmed by objective measures. Further evaluation is required to determine the effectiveness of the other interventions reviewed.

BACKGROUND To control the COVID-19 pandemic, people should adopt protective behaviors at home (self-isolation, social distancing, putting shopping and packages aside, wearing face coverings, cleaning and disinfecting, and handwashing). There is currently limited support to help individuals conduct these behaviors. OBJECTIVE This study aims to report current household infection control behaviors in the United Kingdom and examine how they might be improved. METHODS This was a pragmatic cross-sectional observational study of anonymous participant data from Germ Defence between May 6-24, 2020. Germ Defence is an open-access fully automated website providing behavioral advice for infection control within households. A total of 28,285 users sought advice from four website pathways based on household status (advice to protect themselves generally, to protect others if the user was showing symptoms, to protect themselves if household members were showing symptoms, and to protect a household member who is at high risk). Users reported current infection control behaviors within the home and intentions to change these behaviors. RESULTS Current behaviors varied across all infection control measures but were between sometimes (face covering: mean 1.61, SD 1.19; social distancing: mean 2.40, SD 1.22; isolating: mean 2.78, SD 1.29; putting packages and shopping aside: mean 2.75, SD 1.55) and quite often (cleaning and disinfecting: mean 3.17, SD 1.18), except for handwashing (very often: mean 4.00, SD 1.03). Behaviors were similar regardless of the website pathway used. After using Germ Defence, users recorded intentions to improve infection control behavior across all website pathways and for all behaviors (overall average infection control score mean difference 0.30, 95% CI 0.29-0.31). CONCLUSIONS Self-reported infection control behaviors other than handwashing are lower than is optimal for infection prevention, although handwashing is much higher. Advice using behavior change techniques in Germ Defence led to intentions to improve these behaviors. Promoting Germ Defence within national and local public health and primary care guidance could reduce COVID-19 transmission.

BACKGROUND Digital health interventions are increasingly being used as a supplement or replacement for face-to-face services as a part of predictive prevention. They may be offered to those who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease and need to improve their diet, increase physical activity, stop smoking, or reduce alcohol consumption. Despite the popularity of these interventions, there is no overall summary and comparison of the effectiveness of different modes of delivery of a digital intervention to inform policy. OBJECTIVE This review aims to summarize the effectiveness of digital interventions in improving behavioral and health outcomes related to physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, or diet in nonclinical adult populations and to identify the effectiveness of different modes of delivery of digital interventions. METHODS We reviewed articles published in the English language between January 1, 2009, and February 25, 2019, that presented a systematic review with a narrative synthesis or meta-analysis of any study design examining digital intervention effectiveness; data related to adults (≥18 years) in high-income countries; and data on behavioral or health outcomes related to diet, physical activity, smoking, or alcohol, alone or in any combination. Any time frame or comparator was considered eligible. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and gray literature. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to assess review confidence ratings. RESULTS We found 92 reviews from the academic literature (47 with meta-analyses) and 2 gray literature items (1 with a meta-analysis). Digital interventions were typically more effective than no intervention, but the effect sizes were small. Evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions compared with face-to-face interventions was mixed. Most trials reported that intent-to-treat analysis and attrition rates were often high. Studies with long follow-up periods were scarce. However, we found that digital interventions may be effective for up to 6 months after the end of the intervention but that the effects dissipated by 12 months. There were small positive effects of digital interventions on smoking cessation and alcohol reduction; possible effectiveness in combined diet and physical activity interventions; no effectiveness for interventions targeting physical activity alone, except for when interventions were delivered by mobile phone, which had medium-sized effects; and no effectiveness observed for interventions targeting diet alone. Mobile interventions were particularly effective. Internet-based interventions were generally effective. CONCLUSIONS Digital interventions have small positive effects on smoking, alcohol consumption, and in interventions that target a combination of diet and physical activity. Small effects may have been due to the low efficacy of treatment or due to nonadherence. In addition, our ability to make inferences from the literature we reviewed was limited as those interventions were heterogeneous, many reviews had critically low AMSTAR-2 ratings, analysis was typically intent-to-treat, and follow-up times were relatively short. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019126074; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=126074.

In this study, we investigated how people evaluate behavioral interventions (BIs) that are targeted at themselves, aiming to promote their own health and wellbeing. We compared the impact on people's assessments of the acceptability of using BIs to change their own behavior of: the transparency of the BI (transparent or opaque); the designer of the BI (researchers, government policy-makers, advertisers); and three types of arguments regarding their efficacy (positive, positive + negative, negative). Our target BIs were actual interventions that have been used in a range of policy domains (diet, exercise, alcohol consumption, smoking, personal finances). We found that transparent BIs were considered more acceptable than opaque BIs. On average, all BIs were considered acceptable for changing participants’ own behavior, except for the opaque BI in the finance context; there was differential acceptability of BIs across contexts, with finance clearly least acceptable. However, the perceived effectiveness of the BIs was at least as influential a predictor of acceptability ratings as the ease of identification of the behavior change mechanism across the five contexts. Furthermore, effectiveness was partially mediated by desire to change, suggesting that people do think BIs make them better off, ‘as judged by themselves’.

In England, 81% of all antibiotic prescriptions originate in primary care/community settings, of which up to 20% are thought to be inappropriate. Community pharmacies are often the first point of community contact for patients with suspected infections, providing an opportunity for community pharmacy teams to promote antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). The objective of the study was to improve the management of infections and antimicrobial stewardship in community pharmacies. The study methodology included a non-blinded cluster randomised control trial with pharmacy staff in 272 community pharmacies in England. The intervention arm received an AMS webinar and a patient facing respiratory tract infection (RTI) leaflet (TARGET TYI-RTI) for use in everyday practice for four weeks. The control arm received a webinar on how to participate in the study. The primary outcome was self-reported referrals to general practitioners (GPs). The secondary outcomes were, provision of self-care advice/ written information to patients, referrals to pharmacists, sign-posting to non-prescription medicines and common barriers and facilitators to advice-giving in community pharmacies. Ethics approval was granted by the Public Health England Research Ethics and Governance Group. 66.91% (182 of 272) of pharmacies provided 3649 patient consultation data reports across both arms. Use of the leaflet was associated with a lower likelihood of referrals to GPs for certain RTIs (p &lt, 0.05) and a more frequent provision of self-care advice than the control (p = 0.06). Opportunities to deliver self-care advice were limited due to lack of time. Pharmacy staff had good motivation and capability for managing self-limiting infections but the opportunity to do so was a perceived barrier. Use of the TARGET leaflet facilitated pharmacy staff to give more self-care advice and decreased referrals to GPs.