Adherence to behaviours associated with the test, trace, and isolate system: an analysis using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: The UK's test, trace, and isolate system are key measures to reduce the impact and spread of COVID-19. However, engagement with and adherence to guidance on testing, self-isolation, and providing details of contacts can be low and interventions are needed. This qualitative study aimed to identify the key factors affecting adherence to test, trace, and isolate behaviours using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). METHODS: We conducted six online focus groups between October 2020 and February 2021 with people living in Sheffield who came into close contact with others in work or social settings (N = 30). The focus groups explored capability, opportunity, and motivational barriers to adherence to test, trace, and isolate behaviours. Framework analysis was used to code the data into TDF domains. RESULTS: There is a complex relationship between the factors affecting COVID-19 symptom identification, testing, and self-isolation. People who perceived significant barriers to testing and self-isolation were less likely to interpret potential symptoms as COVID-19, and perceiving barriers to self-isolation reduced the likelihood of requesting a test. Concerns about the negative consequences of self-isolation for themselves and others were common and also influenced willingness to pass on details of contacts. There was a lack of trust in the Test and Trace system, with people wanting further evidence of being at risk of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Communications and interventions to increase adherence to test, trace, and isolate strategies need to consider the interplay of these behaviours and their influences and target them collectively. Efforts to promote testing should focus on the range of barriers to self-isolation, especially increasing financial and practical support, and include new messaging to promote symptom identification.

Interventions to promote physical distancing behaviour during infectious disease pandemics or epidemics: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Physical distancing, defined as keeping 1-2m apart when co-located, can prevent cases of droplet or aerosol transmitted infectious diseases such as SARS-CoV2. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distancing was a recommendation or a requirement in many countries. This systematic review aimed to determine which interventions and behavior change techniques (BCTs) are effective in promoting adherence to distancing and through which potential mechanisms of action (MOAs). METHODS: Six databases were searched. The review included studies that were (a) conducted on humans, (b) reported physical distancing interventions, (c) included any comparator (e.g., pre-intervention versus post-intervention; randomized controlled trial), and (d) reported actual distancing or predictors of distancing behavior. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. BCTs and potential MoAs were identified in each intervention. RESULTS: Six articles (with seven studies and 19 comparisons) indicated that distancing interventions could successfully change MoAs and behavior. Successful BCTs (MoAs) included feedback on behavior (e.g., motivation); information about health consequences, salience of health consequences (e.g., beliefs about consequences), demonstration (e.g., beliefs about capabilities), and restructuring the physical environment (e.g., environmental context and resources). The most promising interventions were proximity buzzers, directional systems, and posters with loss-framed messages that demonstrated the behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates several BCTs and potential MoAs that should be targeted in interventions and highlights gaps that should be the focus of future research.

What influences people's responses to public health messages for managing risks and preventing infectious diseases? A rapid systematic review of the evidence and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Individual behaviour changes, such as hand hygiene and physical distancing, are required on a population scale to reduce transmission of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. However, little is known about effective methods of communicating risk reducing information, and how populations might respond. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence relating to what (1) characterises effective public health messages for managing risk and preventing infectious disease and (2) influences people's responses to messages. DESIGN: A rapid systematic review was conducted. Protocol is published on Prospero CRD42020188704. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched: Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO and Healthevidence.org, and grey literature (PsyarXiv, OSF Preprints) up to May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All study designs that (1) evaluated public health messaging interventions targeted at adults and (2) concerned a communicable disease spread via primary route of transmission of respiratory and/or touch were included. Outcomes included preventative behaviours, perceptions/awareness and intentions. Non-English language papers were excluded. SYNTHESIS: Due to high heterogeneity studies were synthesised narratively focusing on determinants of intentions in the absence of measured adherence/preventative behaviours. Themes were developed independently by two researchers and discussed within team to reach consensus. Recommendations were translated from narrative synthesis to provide evidence-based methods in providing effective messaging. RESULTS: Sixty-eight eligible papers were identified. Characteristics of effective messaging include delivery by credible sources, community engagement, increasing awareness/knowledge, mapping to stage of epidemic/pandemic. To influence intent effectively, public health messages need to be acceptable, increase understanding/perceptions of health threat and perceived susceptibility. DISCUSSION: There are four key recommendations: (1) engage communities in development of messaging, (2) address uncertainty immediately and with transparency, (3) focus on unifying messages from sources and (4) frame messages aimed at increasing understanding, social responsibility and personal control. Embedding principles of behavioural science into public health messaging is an important step towards more effective health-risk communication during epidemics/pandemics.

Template for Rapid Iterative Consensus of Experts (TRICE).

BACKGROUND: Public health emergencies require rapid responses from experts. Differing viewpoints are common in science, however, "mixed messaging" of varied perspectives can undermine credibility of experts; reduce trust in guidance; and act as a barrier to changing public health behaviours. Collation of a unified voice for effective knowledge creation and translation can be challenging. This work aimed to create a method for rapid psychologically-informed expert guidance during the COVID-19 response. METHOD: TRICE (Template for Rapid Iterative Consensus of Experts) brings structure, peer-review and consensus to the rapid generation of expert advice. It was developed and trialled with 15 core members of the British Psychological Society COVID-19 Behavioural Science and Disease Prevention Taskforce. RESULTS: Using TRICE; we have produced 18 peer-reviewed COVID-19 guidance documents; based on rapid systematic reviews; co-created by experts in behavioural science and public health; taking 4-156 days to produce; with approximately 18 experts and a median of 7 drafts per output. We provide worked-examples and key considerations; including a shared ethos and theoretical/methodological framework; in this case; the Behaviour Change Wheel and COM-B. CONCLUSION: TRICE extends existing consensus methodologies and has supported public health collaboration; co-creation of guidance and translation of behavioural science to practice through explicit processes in generating expert advice for public health emergencies.

Learning from previous lockdown measures and minimising harmful biopsychosocial consequences as they end: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Infectious outbreaks, most recently coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have required pervasive public health strategies, termed lockdown measures, including quarantine, social distancing, and closure of workplaces and educational establishments. Although evidence analysing immediate effects is expanding, repercussions following lockdown measures remain poorly understood. This systematic review aims to analyse biopsychosocial consequences after lockdown measures end according to short, medium, and long-term impacts. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to January 12, 2021. Reference lists were manually reviewed. Eligible studies analysed biopsychosocial functioning after lockdown measures secondary to recent infectious outbreaks ended. Lockdown measures were defined as quarantine, isolation, workplace or educational closures, social or physical distancing, and national or local closure of public institutions deemed non-essential. Studies exclusively researching outcomes during lockdown measures, examined infectious participants, or analysed lockdown measures not pertaining to an infectious outbreak were excluded. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed bias with a third resolving discrepancies. Data was extracted from published reports with further information requested from authors where necessary. The mixed methods appraisal tool assessed study quality, languages were restricted to English, German, Italian, and French and narrative synthesis was applied. RESULTS: Of 5149 identified studies, 40 were eligible for inclusion. Psychological distress, economic repercussions, social, biological, and behavioural ramifications were observed. Short to medium-term effects comprised reactions relating to early trauma processing whereas medium to long-term repercussions manifested in maladaptive behaviours and mental health deterioration. Increased alcohol intake, stigmatisation, and economic effects were also identified consequences. High-risk groups included health care workers, children, elderly, inpatients, those with pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses, and socially isolated individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Supporting vulnerable groups and offering education, workplace modifications, financial, and social assistance may mitigate negative repercussions. Establishing a rapid and comprehensive evidence base appraising the efficacy of such interventions and identifying areas for development is essential. This review was limited by study heterogeneity and lack of randomisation in available literature. Given the unprecedented nature and progression of COVID-19, the relevance of previous outcomes remains uncertain. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42020181134.