Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore UK public decisions around whether or not to get COVID-19 vaccines, and the facilitators and barriers behind participants' decisions. DESIGN: This qualitative study consisted of six online focus groups conducted between 15th March and 22nd April 2021. Data were analysed using a framework approach. SETTING: Focus groups took place via online videoconferencing (Zoom). PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n = 29) were a diverse group (by ethnicity, age and gender) UK residents aged 18 years and older. RESULTS: We used the World Health Organization's vaccine hesitancy continuum model to look for, and explore, three main types of decisions related to COVID-19 vaccines: vaccine acceptance, vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy (or vaccine delay). Two reasons for vaccine delay were identified: delay due to a perceived need for more information and delay until vaccine was "required" in the future. Nine themes were identified: three main facilitators (Vaccination as a social norm; Vaccination as a necessity; Trust in science) and six main barriers (Preference for "natural immunity"; Concerns over possible side effects; Perceived lack of information; Distrust in government;; Conspiracy theories; "Covid echo chambers") to vaccine uptake. CONCLUSION: In order to address vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy, it is useful to understand the reasons behind people's decisions to accept or refuse an offer of a vaccine, and to listen to them and engage with, rather than dismiss, these reasons. Those working in public health or health communication around vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, in and beyond the UK, might benefit from incorporating the facilitators and barriers found in this study.

Barriers and enablers to delivering opportunistic behaviour change interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study in healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: In line with public health policy, healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in the UK's National Health Service (NHS) are encouraged to deliver opportunistic health behaviour change interventions during routine consultations. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare delivery has been wide-ranging, but little is known about how the pandemic has affected the delivery of health behaviour change interventions. The present study aimed to examine the barriers and enablers to delivering opportunistic behaviour change interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Twenty-five qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted in January 2022 with a range of patient-facing healthcare professionals (including nurses, physiotherapists, dieticians, doctors and midwives) working in the NHS. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two overarching themes were generated: (1) the healthcare system's response to COVID-19, and (2) maintaining good HCP-patient relationships: reluctance and responsibility. COVID-19-related barriers included exacerbated staffing pressures and a perceived inability to use IT equipment to facilitate conversations about health behaviour change (due to poor internet connectivity or ill-equipped platforms). COVID-19-related enablers included the use of video consultations enabling less awkward and more honest conversations about health behaviours. However, some barriers and enablers remained the same as pre-pandemic, such as issues of role responsibility for discussing health behaviour change with patients, balancing holistic wellbeing advice with maintaining positive patient-HCP relationships, and reluctance to deliver opportunistic behaviour change interventions. DISCUSSION: The increased use of remote consultations may facilitate the delivery of opportunistic health behaviour change interventions by healthcare professionals. However, there is also a strong need to improve staffing levels, in order that staff have the psychological and physical capabilities to engage patients in these conversations.

Experiences, Perceptions of Risk, and Lasting Impacts of COVID-19 for Employees in the Public Transport Sector.

BACKGROUND: Age-standardized mortality rates for taxi drivers, chauffeurs, bus and coach drivers show that public transport workers were at high risk at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the public transport sector was required to continue services throughout the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to develop a better understanding of the experiences of organizational leaders and workers within the UK public transport sector (bus, rail, and tram). Specifically, it aims to explore the perceived balance of risk and mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, report on their perceptions of safety in public transport during the pandemic and in the future, and consider how these perceptions and changes impact on long-term worker health and wellbeing. METHODS: This study formed part of a larger stakeholder engagement with the public transport sector. Organizational leaders and workers were recruited (n = 18) and semi-structured interviews carried out between January and May 2021. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Overarching and subthemes were identified. Themes relating to perceptions and impacts of risk of COVID-19 for employees included: acceptability of risk for workers, perceptions of risk mitigation effectiveness, changes to working practices and their impact on morale and wellbeing, issues with compliance to mitigations such as social distancing and face coverings in passenger and co-worker groups alongside a lack of power to challenge behaviour effectively, and the roles of leadership and messaging. Themes related to long-lasting impacts of COVID-19 on working practices and effects on health and wellbeing included: continuing mitigations, impact of increasing passenger numbers, impact of vaccination programme, and impact of changes to business structure. CONCLUSIONS: Most public transport employees reported feeling safe, related to the extent to which their role was public-facing. However, data were collected during a time of very low passenger numbers. Current mitigation measures were thought effective in reducing the risk of viral transmission, although measures may have a detrimental effect on worker morale and wellbeing. Issues relating to non-compliance with guidance and 'in-group' behaviour were identified. Impacts on wider business sustainability and individual wellbeing of staff should be considered when developing responses to any future pandemics. Recommendations are made for prioritizing employee engagement with colleagues, and the importance of strong leadership and clear messaging in promoting adherence to behavioural mitigations.

Identifying targets for interventions to support public use of face coverings.

OBJECTIVES: Interventions to promote the wearing of face coverings if required in the future can only be developed if we know why people do or do not wear them. Study aims were, therefore, to assess public adherence to wearing face coverings to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and to gauge why people were or were not wearing face coverings in work, public transport, and indoor leisure settings. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: 10,622 adults (25 January-6 February 2022) who were representative of the UK population were asked about their (a) wearing of face coverings in work, public transport, and leisure settings; (b) sociodemographic characteristics; and (c) perceptions of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations ("COM-B"). Data were analysed descriptively, using within-participants ANOVA and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Participants reported mostly wearing face coverings in public transport settings (>80%), but substantially less in work (<50%) and leisure (<30%) contexts. Perceptions of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to wear face coverings were consistently associated with the actual wearing of face coverings across the three settings, but there were marked deficits in automatic motivation and social opportunity. People living in England, describing themselves as White, and men were least likely to wear face coverings. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeted at men, people living in England, and those describing themselves as White that focus on increasing capabilities, providing greater opportunities and boosting motivations are suggested to promote the wearing of face coverings, with particular focus on addressing automatic motivation and social opportunity.

Using routine outcome measures as clinical process tools: Maximising the therapeutic yield in the IAPT programme when working remotely.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to investigate the administration and use of routine outcome monitoring session by session in the context of improving guided-self-help interventions when delivered remotely at Step 2 care in the English Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services. DESIGN: Qualitative research using recordings of telephone-treatment sessions. METHOD: Participants (11 patients and 11 practitioners) were recruited from four nationally funded IAPT services and one-third sector organisation commissioned to deliver Step 2 IAPT services, in England. Data collection took place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Transcripts of telephone-treatment sessions were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) lack of consistency in the administration of outcome measures (e.g. inconsistent wording); (2) outcome measures administered as a stand-alone inflexible task (e.g. mechanical administration); (3) outcome measures as impersonal numbers (e.g. summarising, categorising and comparing total scores); and (4) missed opportunities to use outcome measures therapeutically (e.g. lack of therapeutic use of item and total scores). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of outcome measures needs to ensure validity and reliability. Therapeutic yield from session-by-session outcome measures could be enhanced by focusing on three main areas: (1) adopting a collaborative conversational approach, (2) maximising the use of total and items scores and (3) integrating outcome measures with in-session treatment decisions. Shifting the perception of outcome measures as impersonal numbers to being process clinical tools ensures a personalised delivery of psychological interventions and has the potential to enhance engagement from practitioners and patients what may reduce drop-out rates and improve clinical outcomes.

Examining drivers of self-harm guideline implementation by general practitioners: A qualitative analysis using the theoretical domains framework.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (1) examine barriers and enablers to General Practitioners' (GP) use of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for self-harm and (2) recommend potential intervention strategies to improve implementation of them in primary care. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHODS: Twenty-one telephone interviews, semi-structured around the capabilities, opportunities and motivations model of behaviour change (COM-B), were conducted with GPs in the United Kingdom. The Theoretical Domains Framework was employed as an analytical framework. Using the Behaviour Change Wheel, Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs), intervention functions and exemplar interventions were identified. RESULTS: GPs valued additional knowledge about self-harm risk assessments (knowledge), and communication skills were considered to be fundamental to high-pressure consultations (cognitive and interpersonal skills). GPs did not engage with the guidelines due to concerns that they would be a distraction from patient cues about risk during consultations (memory, attention and decision processes), and perceptions that following the guidance is difficult due to time pressures and lack of access to mental health referrals (environmental context and resources). Clinical uncertainty surrounding longer term care for people that self-harm, particularly patients that are waiting for or cannot access a referral, drives GPs to rely on their professional judgement over the guidance (beliefs about capabilities). CONCLUSIONS: Three key drivers related to information and skill needs, guideline engagement and clinical uncertainty need to be addressed to support GPs to be able to assess and manage self-harm. Five intervention functions and ten BCT groups were identified as potential avenues for intervention design.

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.

"We want to live a little longer and our family want[s] us around": A summative content analysis of adherence to COVID-19-related guidelines using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

OBJECTIVE: Public adherence to COVID-19-related government guidance varied during the initial lockdown in the UK, but the determinants of public adherence to such guidance are unclear. We capture spontaneous reflections on adherence to UK government guidance from a representative UK sample, and use the TDF to identify key determinants of COVID-related behaviours. DESIGN: The design was cross-sectional. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected from a large sample of UK adults (N = 2,252) via an online questionnaire as part of a wider survey about the UK public's responses to the government's COVID-19-related guidance. Summative content analysis was used to identify key guideline terms in the data, followed by latent analysis to interpret the underlying meanings behind the terms using the TDF as an analytical framework. RESULTS: Six TDF domains were identified in the data: Environmental Context and Resources; Beliefs about Consequences; Social Influences; Memory, Attention and Decision Processes; Emotion; and Knowledge. Although the samples were motivated and capable of adhering, limitations in their environments, resources, and social support mechanisms restricted behaviour. Self-reported adherence was sensitive to positive and negative beliefs about the effectiveness of the measures, in addition to interpretations of the terms 'essential' and 'necessary' in the guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive structural obstacles to adherence, the majority of the British public were able to follow government COVID-19-related instructions, provided they had sufficient resources, social support, and positive perceptions about the effectiveness of the measures. Ambiguities surrounding key terminology in the guidance left room for interpretation, which may have contributed to non-adherence.

Shedding Light on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccination, and Auditory Symptoms: Causality or Spurious Conjunction?

There are reports of associations between SARS-CoV2, COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, and auditory symptoms (hearing difficulty, tinnitus). However, most studies have relied on self-report and lack baseline and/or non-COVID control groups. This makes it problematic to differentiate if symptoms are associated with SARS-CoV2, COVID-19, the vaccine, psychosocial factors or recall bias. In this study, we differentiate these by comparing hearing and tinnitus survey data collected pre- and during the pandemic. The survey conducted during the pandemic asked about the onset and change in three types of symptom. Type One—known association (loss of smell, memory/concentration issues, persistent fatigue), Type Two—indeterminate association (auditory symptoms), and Type Three—no established association with COVID-19 (toothache). We hypothesized that if auditory symptoms are directly associated with COVID-19, their onset and change would be similar to Type One symptoms, but if indirectly associated (reflecting psychosocial factors and/or recall bias) would be more similar to Type Three symptoms. Of the 6,881 individuals who responded, 6% reported confirmed COVID-19 (positive test), 11% probably had COVID-19, and 83% reported no COVID-19. Those with confirmed or probable COVID-19 more commonly reported new and/or worsened auditory symptoms than those not reporting COVID-19. However, this does not imply causality because: (1) new auditory symptoms coincided with COVID-19 illness among just 1/3 of those with confirmed or probable COVID-19, and another 1/3 said their symptoms started before the pandemic—despite reporting no symptoms in the pre-pandemic survey. (2) >60% of individuals who had COVID-19 said it had affected their Type 3 symptoms, despite a lack of evidence linking the two. (3) Those with confirmed COVID-19 reported more Type 1 symptoms, but reporting of Type 2 and Type 3 symptoms did not differ between those with confirmed COVID-19 and those without COVID-19, while those who probably had COVID-19 most commonly reported these symptom types. Despite more reports of auditory symptoms in confirmed or probable COVID-19, there is inconsistent reporting, recall bias, and possible nocebo effects. Studies that include appropriate control groups and use audiometric measures in addition to self-report to investigate change in auditory symptoms relative to pre-COVID-19 are urgently needed.

The association between COVID-19-related fear and reported self-harm in a national survey of people with a lifetime history of self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the characteristics of people living in the community who have previously self-harmed and may benefit from interventions during and after COVID-19. We therefore aimed to: (a) examine the relationship between reported self-harm and COVID-19-related fear, and (b) describe the characteristics of a community sample of people who reported a lifetime history of self-harm. METHODS: A cross-sectional national online survey of UK adults who reported a lifetime history of self-harm (n = 1029) was conducted. Data were collected May - June 2020. Main outcomes were self-reported COVID-19-related fear (based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale [FCV-19S]), lifetime history of COVID-19, and lifetime history of self-harm. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Chi-square was used to compare characteristics of our sample with available national data. RESULTS: Overall, 75.1, 40.2 and 74.3% of the total sample reported lifetime suicidal ideation, suicidal attempts and non-suicidal self-harm respectively. When adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, social grade, and exposure to death and suicide, binary logistic regression showed higher levels of perceived symptomatic (or physiological) reactions to COVID-19 were associated with suicidal ideation (OR = 1.22, 95%CI 1.07, 1.39) and suicidal attempts (OR = 3.91, 95%CI 1.18, 12.96) in the past week. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest an urgent need to consider the impact of COVID-19 on people with a lifetime history of self-harm when designing interventions to help support people in reducing suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts. Experiencing symptomatic reactions of fear in particular is associated with self-harm. Helping to support people to develop coping plans in response to threat-related fear is likely to help people at risk of repeat self-harm during public health emergencies.

Prevalence and correlates of COVID-19-related traumatic stress symptoms among older adults: A national survey.

Coronavirus pandemics increase the incidence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which requires intensive treatment and is related to several long-term psychiatric disorders. Older adults are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and hence trauma symptoms. It is not known what is the prevalence of trauma symptoms relating to COVID-19 specifically among older adults nor what may be the markers for the emergence of trauma symptoms. The aim of the present research was to estimate the prevalence, and identify correlates of, traumatic stress symptoms attributable to COVID-19 among older adults in the UK. A cross-sectional survey that assessed COVID-19-related trauma symptoms and demographics was conducted with a sample of 3012 adults aged 60 years and older who were representative of the UK population. Data were analysed descriptively and using multiple/logistic regression. 36.5% of the sample (n = 1100) reported experiencing clinically meaningful traumatic stress symptoms that could lead to as many as 27.4% of the sample going on to develop PTSD. Women and younger older adults were particularly likely to experience clinically meaningful symptoms of traumatic stress. Work is urgently required to prepare services to address what may be substantial numbers of older people presenting with PTSD in the future.

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.

Public perceptions of non-adherence to pandemic protection measures by self and others: A study of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Novel viral pandemics present significant challenges to global public health. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. social distancing) are an important means through which to control the transmission of such viruses. One of the key factors determining the effectiveness of such measures is the level of public adherence to them. Research to date has focused on quantitative exploration of adherence and non-adherence, with a relative lack of qualitative exploration of the reasons for non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To explore participants' perceptions of non-adherence to COVID-19 policy measures by self and others in the UK, focusing on perceived reasons for non-adherence. METHODS: Qualitative study comprising 12 focus groups conducted via video-conferencing between 25th September and 13th November 2020. Participants were 51 UK residents aged 18 and above, reflecting a range of ages, genders and race/ethnicities. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Participants reported seeing an increase in non-adherence in others over the course of the pandemic. Reports of non-adherence in self were lower than reports of non-adherence in others. Analysis revealed six main themes related to participants' reported reasons for non-adherence in self and others: (1) 'Alert fatigue' (where people find it difficult to follow, or switch off from, information about frequently changing rules or advice) (2) Inconsistent rules (3) Lack of trust in government (4) Learned Helplessness (5) Resistance and rebelliousness (6)The impact of vaccines on risk perception. Participants perceived a number of systemic failures (e.g. unclear policy, untrustworthy policymakers) to strongly contribute to two forms non-adherence-violations and errors. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that latent and systemic failures-in the form of policy decisions that are commonly experienced as too changeable, inconsistent and confusing, and policy makers that are commonly perceived as untrustworthy-may play a significant role in creating the conditions that enable or encourage non-adherence.

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.

Identifying targets for interventions to support public adherence to government instructions to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 lacks sentience and can only be spread through human behaviour. Government instructions to the general public include: (a) limiting time spent outside the home, (b) staying more than 1 m away from people outside the household at all times, and (c) maintaining hand hygiene. Current evidence suggests high rates of adherence to such instructions, but interventions to sustain adherence to government instructions in the long term can only be developed if we know why people do or do not adhere to them. The aims were to assess levels of public adherence to government instructions to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but more importantly to gauge why people were or were not adhering to instructions. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 2252 adults who were representative of the UK population. Data were analysed descriptively, and using one-sample t-tests, within-participants ANOVA and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The sample reported mostly adhering to UK government instructions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with 5% or fewer people reporting active resistance to instructions. People generally reported high levels of capability, opportunity and motivation to follow the instructions, but perceived relatively few physical and social opportunities. Multiple linear regression analyses showed that better adherence was associated with older age, being a woman, having a white ethnic background, and with perceiving greater levels of capabilities, opportunities and motivations. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeted at people with black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, men and younger people that focus on increasing capabilities, providing greater opportunities and boosting motivations are needed to support continued adherence to government instructions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Further research is required to track changes in people's capabilities, opportunities, motivations and behaviours in response to the ongoing emergency, any changes in government instructions, and to adapt the present procedures to other emergency situations.

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.

What challenges do UK adults face when adhering to COVID-19-related instructions? Cross-sectional survey in a representative sample.

Adherence to government COVID-19-related instructions is reported to be high, but the psychosocial impacts of measures such as self-isolation and physical distancing could undermine long-term adherence to containment measures. The first step in designing interventions to mitigate the impacts of adhering to COVID-19-related instructions is to identify what are the most prevalent challenges and what characterises the people facing them. A cross-sectional survey was administered to a representative sample of the UK population (N = 2252), of whom n = 2139 (94.9%) reported adhering to the UK government's COVID-19-related instructions, and were included in the final analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Of the people who reported adhering to UK government's COVID-19-related instructions, 80.3% reported experiencing challenges. Adults aged 55 years or over (OR = 1.939, 95%CI 1.331-2.825) and men (OR = 0.489, 95%CI 0.393-0.608) were least likely to report challenges. Adjusting to changes in daily routine (reported by 48.7% of the sample), mental health (reported by 41.4% of the sample) and physical health (reported by 31.5% of the sample) were the most prevalent challenges. For the first time, the present study quantifies the extent to which people experienced challenges when adhering to government COVID-19-related instructions. Few people reported experiencing no challenges when adhering to COVID-19-related instructions. Interventions to address the effects of changes in daily routine, mental health challenges, and physical health challenges should be prioritised, with a focus on key subgroups including women, younger adults, and people without care commitments.

Investigating which behaviour change techniques work for whom in which contexts delivered by what means: Proposal for an international collaboratory of Centres for Understanding Behaviour Change (CUBiC).

PURPOSE: Behaviour change techniques are fundamental to the development of any behaviour change intervention, but surprisingly little is known about their properties. Key questions include when, why, how, in which contexts, for which behaviours, in what combinations, compared with what, and for whom behaviour change techniques are typically effective. The aims of the present paper are to: (1) articulate the scope of the challenge in understanding the properties of behaviour change techniques, (2) propose means by which to tackle this problem, and (3) call scientists to action. METHODS: Iterative consensus (O'Connor et al., 2020, Br. J. Psychol., e12468) was used to elicit and distil the judgements of experts on how best to tackle the problem of understanding the nature and operation of behaviour change techniques. RESULTS: We propose a worldwide network of 'Centres for Understanding Behaviour Change' (CUBiC) simultaneously undertaking research to establish what are the single and combined properties of behaviour change techniques across multiple behaviours and populations. We additionally provide a first attempt to systematize an approach that CUBiC could use to understand behaviour change techniques and to begin to harness the efforts of researchers worldwide. CONCLUSION: Better understanding of behaviour change techniques is vital for improving behaviour change interventions to tackle global problems such as obesity and recovery from COVID-19. The CUBiC proposal is just one of many possible solutions to the problems that the world faces and is a call to action for scientists to work collaboratively to gain deeper understanding of the underpinnings of behaviour change interventions.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Public Responses to Health Messages Encouraging Vaccination against Infectious Diseases in a Pandemic or Epidemic.

Public health teams need to understand how the public responds to vaccination messages in a pandemic or epidemic to inform successful campaigns encouraging the uptake of new vaccines as they become available. A rapid systematic review was performed by searching PsycINFO, MEDLINE, healthevidence.org, OSF Preprints and PsyArXiv Preprints in May 2020 for studies including at least one health message promoting vaccine uptake of airborne-, droplet- and fomite-spread viruses. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) or the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and for patient and public involvement (PPI) in the research. Thirty-five articles were included. Most reported messages for seasonal influenza (n = 11; 31%) or H1N1 (n = 11; 31%). Evidence from moderate to high quality studies for improving vaccine uptake included providing information about virus risks and vaccination safety, as well as addressing vaccine misunderstandings, offering vaccination reminders, including vaccination clinic details, and delivering mixed media campaigns across hospitals or communities. Behavioural influences (beliefs and intentions) were improved when: shorter, risk-reducing or relative risk framing messages were used; the benefits of vaccination to society were emphasised; and beliefs about capability and concerns among target populations (e.g., vaccine safety) were addressed. Clear, credible, messages in a language target groups can understand were associated with higher acceptability. Two studies (6%) described PPI in the research process. Future campaigns should consider the beliefs and information needs of target populations in their design, including ensuring that vaccine eligibility and availability is clear, and messages are accessible. More high quality research is needed to demonstrate the effects of messaging interventions on actual vaccine uptake.

Public attitudes towards COVID-19 contact tracing apps: A UK-based focus group study.

BACKGROUND: During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, one of the key components of many countries' strategies to reduce the spread of the virus is contact tracing. OBJECTIVE: To explore public attitudes to a COVID-19 contact tracing app in the United Kingdom. SETTING: Online video-conferencing. PARTICIPANTS: 27 participants, UK residents aged 18 years and older. METHODS: Qualitative study consisting of six focus groups carried out between 1st-12th May, 2020 (39-50 days into the UK 'lockdown'). RESULTS: Participants were divided as to whether or not they felt they would use the app. Analysis revealed five themes: (1) lack of information and misconceptions surrounding COVID-19 contact tracing apps; (2) concerns over privacy; (3) concerns over stigma; (4)concerns over uptake; and (5) contact tracing as the 'greater good'. Concerns over privacy, uptake and stigma were particularly significant amongst those stated they will not be using the app, and the view that the app is for the 'greater good' was particularly significant amongst those who stated they will be using the app. One of the most common misconceptions about the app was that it could allow users to specifically identify and map COVID-19 cases amongst their contacts and in their vicinity. CONCLUSIONS: Our participants were torn over whether digital contact tracing is a good idea or not, and views were heavily influenced by moral reasoning. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patients were involved in this study. The public were not involved in the development of the research questions, research design or outcome measures. A pilot focus group with participants not included in the present paper was used to help test and refine the focus group questions. Summary results were disseminated via email to participants prior to publication for feedback and comment.