Novel intervention to promote COVID-19 protective behaviours among Black and South Asian communities in the UK: protocol for a mixed-methods pilot evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Culturally 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 ANALYSIS: This 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 DISSEMINATION: The 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.

A social identity perspective on interoperability in the emergency services: Emergency responders' experiences of multi-agency working during the COVID-19 response in the UK

Recent research has shown that multi-agency emergency response is beset by a range of problems, calling for a greater understanding of the way in which these teams work together to improve future multi-agency working. Social psychological research shows that a shared identity within a group can improve the way in which that group works together and can facilitate effective outcomes. In the present study, 52 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 strategic and tactical responders during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand the possible role of shared identity in the multi-agency response to COVID-19. Findings suggest that two forms of group relations were particularly relevant: horizontal intergroup relations – the relationships among responders at the local level;and vertical intergroup relations – the relationship between responders at the local level and national level. Three key factors appeared to contribute to an effective multi-agency response. First, pre-existing relationships with other responders facilitated the ease with which responders were able to work together initially. Second, a sense of ‘common fate' helped bring responders together, and finally, Chairs of groups were able to strategically reinforce a sense of shared identity within the group.

Emergency responders' experiences of multi-agency working during the COVID-19 response in the UK: Social identity as part of the problem and part of the solution

Recent research has shown that multi-agency emergency response is beset by a range of problems, calling for a greater understanding of the way in which these teams work together to improve future multi-agency working. Social psychological research shows that a shared identity within a group can improve the way in which that group works together and can facilitate effective outcomes. Thus, seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted with strategic and tactical responders during the COVID-19 pandemic to explore whether there was any evidence that a shared identity was part of the solution to challenges faced, and if so, how and when shared identity arose. Findings suggest that two forms of group relations were particularly relevant: horizontal intergroup relations – the relationships among responders at the local level;and vertical intergroup relations – the relationship between responders at the local level and national level. Three key factors appeared to contribute to a shared identity amongst responders. First, pre-existing relationships with other responders facilitated the ease with which responders were able to work together initially. Second, a sense of ‘common fate' helped bring responders together, and finally, Chairs of groups were able to strategically reinforce a sense of shared identity.

The impact of "freedom day" on COVID-19 health protective behaviour in England: An observational study of hand hygiene, face covering use and physical distancing in public spaces pre and post the relaxing of restrictions.

Objectives: To study the prevalence of COVID-19 health protective behaviours before and after rules eased in England on the 19th July 2021. Design: Observational study pre (12th-18th July) and post (26th July-1st August) 19th July, and a cross-sectional online survey (26th to 27th July). Setting: Observations occurred in supermarkets (n = 10), train stations (n = 10), bus stops (n = 10), a coach station (n = 1) and a London Underground station (n = 1). The survey recruited a nationally representative sample. Participants: All adults entering the observed locations during a one-hour period (n = 3819 pre- and n = 2948 post-19th July). In the online survey, 1472 respondents reported having been shopping for groceries/visited a pharmacy and 566 reported having used public transport or having been in a taxi/minicab in the last week. Main outcome measures: We observed whether people wore a face covering, maintained distance from others and cleaned their hands. We investigated self-reports of wearing a face covering while in shops or using public transport. Results: In most locations observed, the proportion of people wearing face coverings, cleaning the hands and maintaining physical distance declined post 19th July. Pre 19th July, 70.2% (95% CI 68.7 to 71.7%) of people were observed to be wearing a face covering versus 55.8% (54.2 to 57.9%) post 19th July. Equivalent rates for physical distancing were 40.9% (39.0 to 42.8%) versus 29.5% (27.4 to 31.7%), and for hand hygiene were 4.4% (3.8 to 5.1%) versus 3.9% (3.2 to 4.6%). Self-reports of "always" wearing face coverings were broadly similar to observed rates. Conclusions: Adherence to protective behaviours was sub-optimal and declined during the relaxation of restrictions, despite appeals to exercise caution. Self-reports of "always" wearing a face covering in specific locations appear valid.

Psychosocial factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the UK: a prospective cohort study (CoVAccS – wave 3)

Background We investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake, future vaccination intentions, and changes in beliefs and attitudes over time. Methods Prospective cohort study. 1500 participants completed an online survey in January 2021 (T1, start of vaccine rollout in the UK), of whom 1148 (response rate 76.5%) completed another survey in October 2021 (T2, all UK adults offered two vaccine doses). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate factors associated with subsequent vaccine uptake. Content analysis was used to investigate the main reasons behind future vaccine intentions (T2). Changes in beliefs and attitudes were investigated using analysis of variance. Findings: At T2, 90.0% (95% CI 88.2%-91.7%) of participants had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 2.2% (95% CI 1.3%-3.0%) had received one dose, and 7.4% (95% CI 5.9%-8.9%) had not been vaccinated. Uptake was associated with higher intention to be vaccinated at T1, greater perceived vaccination social norms, necessity of vaccination, and perceived safety of the vaccine. People who had initiated vaccination reported being likely to complete it, while those who had not yet received a vaccine reported being unlikely to be vaccinated in the future. At T2, participants perceived greater susceptibility to, but lower severity of, COVID-19 (p<0.001), than T1. Perceived safety and adequacy of vaccine information were higher (p<0.001). Interpretation: Targeting modifiable beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination may increase uptake.

Psychosocial factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the UK: A prospective cohort study (CoVAccS - Wave 3).

Background: We investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake, future vaccination intentions, and changes in beliefs and attitudes over time. Methods: Prospective cohort study. 1500 participants completed an online survey in January 2021 (T1, start of vaccine rollout in the UK), of whom 1148 (response rate 76.5 %) completed another survey in October 2021 (T2, all UK adults offered two vaccine doses). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate factors associated with subsequent vaccine uptake. Content analysis was used to investigate the main reasons behind future vaccine intentions (T2). Changes in beliefs and attitudes were investigated using analysis of variance. Findings: At T2, 90.0 % (95 % CI 88.2-91.7 %) of participants had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 2.2 % (95 % CI 1.3-3.0 %) had received one dose, and 7.4 % (95 % CI 5.9-8.9 %) had not been vaccinated. Uptake was associated with higher intention to be vaccinated at T1, greater perceived vaccination social norms, necessity of vaccination, and perceived safety of the vaccine. People who had initiated vaccination reported being likely to complete it, while those who had not yet received a vaccine reported being unlikely to be vaccinated in the future. At T2, participants perceived greater susceptibility to, but lower severity of, COVID-19 (p < 0.001) than at T1. Perceived safety and adequacy of vaccine information were higher (p < 0.001). Interpretation: Targeting modifiable beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination may increase uptake.

A qualitative study about how families coped with managing their well-being, children's physical activity and education during the COVID-19 school closures in England.

In 2020, schools in England closed for six months due to COVID-19, resulting in children being home-schooled. There is limited understanding about the impacts of this on children's mental and physical health and their education. Therefore, we explored how families coped with managing these issues during the school closures. We conducted 30 qualitative interviews with parents of children aged 18 years and under (who would usually be in school) between 16 and 21 April 2020. We identified three themes and eight sub-themes that impacted how families coped whilst schools were closed. We found that family dynamics, circumstances, and resources (Theme 1), changes in entertainment activities and physical movement (Theme 2) and worries about the COVID-19 pandemic (Theme 3) impacted how well families were able to cope. A key barrier to coping was struggles with home-schooling (e.g., lack of resources and support from the school). However, parents being more involved in their children's personal development and education were considered a benefit to home-schooling. Managing the lack of entertainment activities and in-person interactions, and additional health worries about loved ones catching COVID-19 were challenges for families. Parents reported adverse behaviour changes in their children, although overall, they reported they were coping well. However, pre-existing social and educational inequalities are at risk of exacerbation. Families with more resources (e.g., parental supervision, access to green space, technology to facilitate home-schooling and no special educational needs) were better able to cope when schools were closed. On balance, however, families appeared to be able to adapt to the schools being closed. We suggest that policy should focus on supporting families to mitigate the widening health and educational gap between families with more and less resources.

Parents' intention to vaccinate their child for COVID-19: A mixed-methods study (CoVAccS-wave 3).

AIM: To investigate UK parents' vaccination intention at a time when COVID-19 vaccination was available to some children. METHODS: Data reported are from the second wave of a prospective cohort study. We conducted a mixed-methods study using an online survey of 270 UK parents (conducted 4-15 October 2021). At this time, vaccination was available to 16- and 17-year-olds and had become available to 12- to 15-year-olds two weeks prior. We asked participants whose child had not yet been vaccinated how likely they were to vaccinate their child for COVID-19. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate factors associated with intention (quantitative component). Parents were also asked for their main reasons behind vaccination intention. Open-ended responses were analysed using content analysis (qualitative component). RESULTS: Parental vaccination intention was mixed (likely: 39.3%, 95% CI 32.8%, 45.7%; uncertain: 33.9%, 95% CI 27.7%, 40.2%; unlikely: 26.8%, 95% CI 20.9%, 32.6%). Intention was associated with: parental COVID-19 vaccination status; greater perceived necessity and social norms regarding COVID-19 vaccination; greater COVID-19 threat appraisal; and lower vaccine safety and novelty concerns. In those who intended to vaccinate their child, the main reasons for doing so were to protect the child and others. In those who did not intend to vaccinate their child, the main reason was safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Parent COVID-19 vaccination status and psychological factors explained a large percentage of the variance in vaccination intention for one's child. Further study is needed to see whether parents' intention to vaccinate their child is affected by fluctuating infection rates, more children being vaccinated, and the UK's reliance on vaccination as a strategy to live with COVID-19.

Daily use of lateral flow devices by contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases to enable exemption from isolation compared with standard self-isolation to reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, during the study period (April to July, 2021), all contacts of people with COVID-19 were required to self-isolate for 10 days, which had adverse impacts on individuals and society. Avoiding the need to self-isolate for those who remain uninfected would be beneficial. We investigated whether daily use of lateral flow devices (LFDs) to test for SARS-CoV-2, with removal of self-isolation for 24 h if negative, could be a safe alternative to self-isolation as a means to minimise onward transmission of the virus. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial in adult contacts identified by COVID-19 contact tracing in England. Consenting participants were randomly assigned to self-isolation (single PCR test, 10-day isolation) or daily contact testing (DCT; seven LFD tests, two PCR tests, no isolation if negative on LFD); participants from a single household were assigned to the same group. Participants were prospectively followed up, with the effect of each intervention on onward transmission established from routinely collected NHS Test and Trace contact tracing data for participants who tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period and tertiary cases arising from their contacts (ie, secondary contacts). The primary outcome of the study was the attack rate, the percentage of secondary contacts (close contacts of SARS-CoV-2-positive study participants) who became COVID-19 cases (tertiary cases) in each group. Attack rates were derived from Bernoulli regression models using Huber-White (robust) sandwich estimator clustered standard errors. Attack rates were adjusted for household exposure, vaccination status, and ability to work from home. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9%. The primary analysis was a modified intention-to-treat analysis excluding those who actively withdrew from the study as data from these participants were no longer held. This study is registered with the Research Registry (number 6809). Data collection is complete; analysis is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 29 and July 28, 2021, 54 923 eligible individuals were enrolled in the study, with final group allocations (following withdrawals) of 26 123 (52·6%) participants in the DCT group and 23 500 (47·4%) in the self-isolation group. Overall, 4694 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR (secondary cases), 2364 (10·1%) in the self-isolation group and 2330 (8·9%) in the DCT group. Adjusted attack rates (among secondary contacts) were 7·5% in the self-isolation group and 6·3% in the DCT group (difference of -1·2% [95% CI -2·3 to -0·2]; significantly lower than the non-inferiority margin of 1·9%). INTERPRETATION: DCT with 24 h exemption from self-isolation for essential activities appears to be non-inferior to self-isolation. This study, which provided evidence for the UK Government's daily lateral flow testing policy for vaccinated contacts of COVID-19 cases, indicated that daily testing with LFDs could allow individuals to reduce the risk of onward transmission while minimising the adverse effects of self-isolation. Although contacts in England are no longer required to isolate, the findings will be relevant for future policy decisions around COVID-19 or other communicable infections. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Exploring the impact of shielding advice on the wellbeing of individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The national shielding programme was introduced by UK Government at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) offered advice and support to stay at home and avoid all non-essential contact. This study aimed to explore the impact and responses of "shielding" on the health and wellbeing of CEV individuals in Southwest England during the first COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: A two-stage mixed methods study, including a structured survey (7 August-23 October 2020) and semi-structured telephone interviews (26 August-30 September 2020) with a sample of individuals who had been identified as CEV and advised to "shield" by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 203 people (57% female, 54% > 69 years, 94% White British, 64% retired) in Southwest England identified as CEV by BNSSG CCG. Thirteen survey respondents participated in follow-up interviews (53% female, 40% > 69 years, 100% White British, 61% retired). Receipt of 'official' communication from NHS England or General Practitioner (GP) was considered by participants as the legitimate start of shielding. 80% of survey responders felt they received all relevant advice needed to shield, yet interviewees criticised the timing of advice and often sought supplementary information. Shielding behaviours were nuanced, adapted to suit personal circumstances, and waned over time. Few interviewees received community support, although food boxes and informal social support were obtained by some. Worrying about COVID-19 was common for survey responders (90%). Since shielding had begun, physical and mental health reportedly worsened for 35% and 42% of survey responders respectively. 21% of survey responders scored ≥ 10 on the PHQ-9 questionnaire indicating possible depression and 15% scored ≥ 10 on the GAD-7 questionnaire indicating possible anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights the difficulties in providing generic messaging that is applicable and appropriate given the diversity of individuals identified as CEV and the importance of sharing tailored and timely advice to inform shielding decisions. Providing messages that reinforce self-determined action and assistance from support services could reduce the negative impact of shielding on mental health and feelings of social isolation.

Psychological factors associated with reporting side effects following COVID-19 vaccination: A prospective cohort study (CoVAccS - Wave 3).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate symptom reporting following the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses, attribution of symptoms to the vaccine, and factors associated with symptom reporting. METHODS: Prospective cohort study (T1: 13-15 January 2021, T2: 4-15 October 2021). Participants were aged 18 years or older, living in the UK. Personal, clinical, and psychological factors were investigated at T1. Symptoms were reported at T2. We used logistic regression analyses to investigate associations. RESULTS: After the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, 74.1% (95% CI 71.4% to 76.7%, n = 762/1028) of participants reported at least one injection-site symptom, while 65.0% (95% CI 62.0% to 67.9%, n = 669/1029) reported at least one other (non-injection-site) symptom. Symptom reporting was associated with being a woman and younger. After the second dose, 52.9% (95% CI 49.8% to 56.0%, n = 532/1005) of participants reported at least one injection-site symptom and 43.7% (95% CI 40.7% to 46.8%, n = 440/1006) reported at least one other (non-injection-site) symptom. Symptom reporting was associated with having reported symptoms after the first dose, having an illness that put one at higher risk of COVID-19 (non-injection-site symptoms only), and not believing that one had enough information about COVID-19 to make an informed decision about vaccination (injection-site symptoms only). CONCLUSIONS: Women and younger people were more likely to report symptoms from vaccination. People who had reported symptoms from previous doses were also more likely to report symptoms subsequently, although symptom reporting following the second vaccine was lower than following the first vaccine. Few psychological factors were associated with symptom reporting.

How has the emergence of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern influenced worry, perceived risk and behaviour in the UK? A series of cross-sectional surveys.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate changes in beliefs and behaviours following news of the Omicron variant and changes to guidance understanding of Omicron-related guidance, and factors associated with engaging with protective behaviours. DESIGN: Series of cross-sectional surveys (1 November to 16 December 2021, five waves of data collection). SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: People living in England, aged 16 years or over (n=1622-1902 per wave). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of worry and perceived risk, and engagement with key behaviours (out-of-home activities, risky social mixing, wearing a face covering and testing uptake). RESULTS: Degree of worry and perceived risk of COVID-19 (to oneself and people in the UK) fluctuated over time, increasing slightly around the time of the announcement about Omicron (p<0.001). Understanding of rules in England was varied, ranging between 10.3% and 91.9%, with people overestimating the stringency of the new rules. Rates of wearing a face covering and testing increased over time (p<0.001). Meeting up with people from another household decreased around the time of the announcement of Omicron (29 November to 1 December), but then returned to previous levels (p=0.002). Associations with protective behaviours were investigated using regression analyses. There was no evidence for significant associations between out-of-home activity and worry or perceived risk (COVID-19 generally or Omicron-specific, p≥0.004; Bonferroni adjustment p<0.002 applied). Engaging in highest risk social mixing and always wearing a face covering were associated with worry and perceived risk about COVID-19 (p≤0.001). Always wearing a face covering in shops was associated with having heard more about Omicron (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Almost 2 years into the COVID-19 outbreak, the emergence of a novel variant of concern only slightly influenced worry and perceived risk. The main protective behaviour (wearing a face covering) promoted by new guidance showed significant re-uptake, but other protective behaviours showed little or no change.

Mental Health Presentations Across Health Care Settings During the First 9 Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic in England: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented impact on the day-to-day lives of people, with several features potentially adversely affecting mental health. There is growing evidence of the size of the impact of COVID-19 on mental health, but much of this is from ongoing population surveys using validated mental health scores. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of the pandemic and control measures on mental health conditions presenting to a spectrum of national health care services monitored using real-time syndromic surveillance in England. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational descriptive study of mental health presentations (those calling the national medical helpline, National Health Service [NHS] 111; consulting general practitioners [GPs] in and out-of-hours; calling ambulance services; and attending emergency departments) from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020. Estimates for the impact of lockdown measures were provided using an interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: Mental health presentations showed a marked decrease during the early stages of the pandemic. Postlockdown, attendances for mental health conditions reached higher than prepandemic levels across most systems-a rise of 10% compared to that expected for NHS 111 and 21% for GP out-of-hours service-while the number of consultations to GP in-hours service was 13% lower compared to the same time previous year. Increases were observed in calls to NHS 111 for sleep problems. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses showed marked changes in the health care attendances and prescribing for common mental health conditions across a spectrum of health care provision, with some of these changes persisting. The reasons for such changes are likely to be complex and multifactorial. The impact of the pandemic on mental health may not be fully understood for some time, and therefore, these syndromic indicators should continue to be monitored.

A qualitative process analysis of daily contact testing as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed carrier of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: In July 2021, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to compare the effect on SARS-CoV-2 transmission of seven days of Daily Contact Testing (DCT) using Lateral Flow Test (LFT) and two Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests as an alternative to 10 days of standard self-isolation with one PCR, following close contact with a SARS-CoV-2 carrier. In this qualitative study, we used a nested process evaluation to aid interpretation of the trial and provide insight into factors influencing use of tests, understanding of test results, and how tests were used to inform behavioural decisions. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 60 participants (42 randomised to DCT and 18 randomised to self-isolation) who had been in close contact with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 carrier and had consented to take part in the trial. RESULTS: Data were organised into three overarching themes: (1) assessing the risks and benefits of DCT (2) use of testing during the study period and (3) future use of testing. Attitudes toward DCT as an alternative to self-isolation and behaviour during the testing period appeared to be informed by an assessment of the associated risks and benefits. Participants reported how important it was for them to avoid isolation, how necessary self-isolation was considered to be, and the ability of LFTs to detect infection. Behaviour during the testing period was modified to reduce risks and harms as much as possible. Testing was considered a potential compromise, reducing both risk of transmission and the negative impact of self-isolation, and was regarded as a way to return to normal. CONCLUSION: Participants in this study viewed DCT as a sensible, feasible, and welcome means of avoiding unnecessary self-isolation. Although negative LFTs provided reassurance, most people still restricted their activity as recommended. DCT was also highly valued by those in vulnerable households as a means of providing reassurance of the absence of infection and as an important means of detecting infection and prompting self-isolation when necessary.

Do people with symptoms of an infectious illness follow advice to stay at home? Evidence from a series of cross-sectional surveys about presenteeism in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the percentage of people in the UK with cough, fever or loss of taste or smell who have not had a positive COVID-19 test result who had been to work, to shops, socialised or provided care to a vulnerable person in the 10 days after developing symptoms. To investigate whether these rates differed according to the type of symptom, what the participant thought the cause of their symptoms was and whether they had taken a COVID-19 test. DESIGN: Four online cross-sectional surveys using non-probability quota sampling method (n=8547). SETTING: Data were collected across the UK from 20 September to 3 November 2021, via a market research company. PARTICIPANTS: Aged over 16 years living in the UK. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Out-of-home activity. RESULTS: 498 participants reported one or more symptoms and had not had a positive COVID-19 test result. Within that group, about half of employed participants had attended work while symptomatic (51.2%-56.3% depending on the symptom, 95% CIs 42.2% to 65.6%). Rates of other contact behaviours ranged from 31.4% (caring for a vulnerable person after developing a cough: 95% CI 24.3% to 38.4%) to 61.5% (shopping for groceries or pharmacy after developing a cough: 95% CI 54.1% to 68.9%). There were no differences according to type of symptom experienced or what the participant felt might be the cause. People who had taken a COVID-19 test were less likely to go out shopping for non-essentials than people who had not taken a test. CONCLUSION: Many people in the UK with symptoms of an infectious disease were not following government advice to stay at home if they believed they had an infectious illness. Reducing these rates may require a shift in our national attitude to the acceptability of people attending work with infectious illnesses.

A Qualitative Study Evaluating the Factors Affecting Families' Adherence to the First COVID-19 Lockdown in England Using the COM-B Model and TDF.

The ability of families to adhere to public health guidance is critical to controlling a pandemic. We conducted qualitative interviews with 30 parents of children aged 18 and under, between 16 and 21 April 2020 when schools in England were closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework, we classified the factors that influenced adherence to seven non-pharmaceutical interventions. We found 40 factors that influenced a family's ability to adhere. Parents generally indicated they could adhere and reported how their family had changed their behaviour to comply with the guidance. Parents primarily reported they were motivated to adhere out of concern for the health consequences of COVID-19, and because the guidance was delivered by the government. However, we found that reduced access to resources (e.g., technology, transport, and outside space) and social influences that encouraged non-adherent behaviour, decreased adherence. Furthermore, we suggest that families with low psychological and physical ability may face additional challenges to adherence and need to be supported. During future school closures, public health agencies should account for these factors when developing guidance.

Advancing a social identity perspective on interoperability in the emergency services: Evidence from the Pandemic Multi-Agency Response Teams during the UK COVID-19 response.

Previous research shows there are persistent challenges with multi-agency response centring on problems of communication and coordination. The Social Identity Approach provides an important psychological framework for analysing relations within and between groups which can be used to understand why challenges in multi-agency response occur, and what can be done to prevent them re-occurring in the future. To explore this issue, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 responders from the Police, and Fire and Rescue Services who were involved in Pandemic Multi-Agency Response Teams (PMART) during the initial months of the COVID-19. These teams responded to suspected COVID-19 deaths in the community. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Results show that responders appeared to share the pre-existing superordinate identity of all being members of the blue-light service. This identity was made salient as a result of responders experiencing positive contact with each other. Responders also shared the situational superordinate identity of PMART which was both created, and then made salient, through positive contact with each other, as well as responders sharing difficult experiences. At the same time though, structural factors such as inequalities in building access and different shift patterns increased the salience of sub-group identities in ways that created conflict between these identities, as well as operational challenges for joint working. This research advances our understanding of multi-agency working from a social identity perspective by providing evidence of a shared social identity at an operational level of emergency response. Practical implications of this research are discussed.

Intention to have the seasonal influenza vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic among eligible adults in the UK: a cross-sectional survey

ObjectiveTo investigate the likelihood of having the seasonal influenza vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals who were eligible to receive it.DesignWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey in July 2020. We included predictors informed by previous research, in the following categories: sociodemographic variables;uptake of influenza vaccine last winter and beliefs about vaccination.Participants570 participants (mean age: 53.07;56.3% female, 87.0% white) who were eligible for the free seasonal influenza vaccination in the UK.Results59.7% of our sample indicated they were likely to have the seasonal influenza vaccination, 22.1% reported being unlikely to have the vaccination and 18.2% were unsure. We used logistic regression to investigate variables associated with intention to receive a seasonal influenza vaccine in the 2020–2021 season. A positive attitude to vaccination in general predicted intention to have the influenza vaccine in 2020–2021 (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.77, p<0.001) but the strongest predictor of intention was previous influenza vaccination behaviour (OR 278.58, 95% CI 78.04 to 994.46, p<0.001).ConclusionsPrevious research suggests that increasing uptake of the influenza vaccination may help contain a COVID-19 outbreak, so steps need to be taken to convert intention into behaviour and to reach those individuals who reported being unlikely or unsure about having the vaccine.

Exploration of attitudes regarding uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccine hesitant adults in the UK: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to explore barriers and facilitators to uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to explore views and reactions to efforts to improve vaccine uptake among vaccine hesitant individuals. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people between the age of 18-29 years who had not had a COVID-19 vaccine, and those between 30 and 49 years who had not had a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: A total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose, and 35 had not been vaccinated. Participants described a willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe and to avoid restrictions. Barriers to uptake included: (1) perceived lack of need for COVID-19 vaccinations, (2) concerns about the efficacy of vaccinations, (3) concerns about safety, and (4) access issues. Uptake appeared to be influenced by age and health status, trust in government, and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may be viewed as coercive. CONCLUSION: Participants were hesitant, rather than opposed, and had questions about their need for, and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Young people did not consider themselves to be at risk of becoming ill from COVID-19, did not think the vaccination was effective in preventing transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted regarding possible long-term side-effects. Concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in government, and misunderstanding of science. To promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that explains the benefits of vaccination and addresses safety concerns more effectively. To overcome inertia in people with low levels of motivation to be vaccinated, appointments must be easily accessible.

Impact of residual risk messaging to reduce false reassurance following test-negative results from asymptomatic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing: an online experimental study of a hypothetical test.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals 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. PARTICIPANTS: 1200 adults from a representative UK sample recruited via Prolific (12-15 March 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Participants 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). RESULTS: The 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, p<0.001) compared with current NHS T&T message. Likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours was unaffected by information (AOR=1.11 95% CI 0.69 to 1.80, χ2(1)=0.18, p=0.669), being high (M=6.4, SD=0.9) across the sample. CONCLUSIONS: A 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 NUMBER: OSF: https://osf.io/byfz3/.