Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Sex Transm Infect ; 2022 Apr 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2228993

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Online testing for STIs may help overcome barriers of traditional face-to-face testing, such as stigma and inconvenience. However, regulation of these online tests is lacking, and the quality of services is variable, with potential short-term and long-term personal, clinical and public health implications. This study aimed to evaluate online self-testing and self-sampling service providers in the UK against national standards. METHODS: Providers of online STI tests (self-sampling and self-testing) in the UK were identified by an internet search of Google and Amazon (June 2020). Website information on tests and associated services was collected and further information was requested from providers via an online survey, sent twice (July 2020, April 2021). The information obtained was compared with British Association for Sexual Health and HIV and Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare guidelines and standards for diagnostics and STI management. RESULTS: 31 providers were identified: 13 self-test, 18 self-sample and 2 laboratories that serviced multiple providers. Seven responded to the online survey. Many conflicts with national guidelines were identified, including: lack of health promotion information, lack of sexual history taking, use of tests licensed for professional-use only marketed for self-testing, inappropriate infections tested for, incorrect specimen type used and lack of advice for postdiagnosis management. CONCLUSIONS: Very few online providers met the national STI management standards assessed, and there is concern that this will also be the case for service provision aspects that were not covered by this study. For-profit providers were the least compliant, with concerning implications for patient care and public health. Regulatory change is urgently needed to ensure that all online providers are compliant with national guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, and providers are held to account if non-compliant.

2.
BMJ Open ; 12(10): e063280, 2022 10 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2064163

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Rapid diagnostic centres (RDCs) are being implemented across the UK to accelerate the assessment of vague suspected cancer symptoms. Targeted behavioural interventions are needed to augment RDCs that serve socioeconomically deprived populations who are disproportionately affected by cancer, have lower cancer symptom awareness and are less likely to seek help for cancer symptoms. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and evaluating a community-based vague cancer symptom awareness intervention in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Intervention materials and messages were coproduced with local stakeholders in Cwm Taf Morgannwg, Wales. Cancer champions will be trained to deliver intervention messages and distribute intervention materials using broadcast media (eg, local radio), printed media (eg, branded pharmacy bags, posters, leaflets), social media (eg, Facebook) and attending local community events. A cross-sectional questionnaire will include self-reported patient interval (time between noticing symptoms to contacting the general practitioner), cancer symptom recognition, cancer beliefs and barriers to presentation, awareness of campaign messages, healthcare resource use, generic quality of life and individual and area-level deprivation indicators. Consent rates and proportion of missing data for patient questionnaires (n=189) attending RDCs will be measured. Qualitative interviews and focus groups will assess intervention acceptability and barriers/facilitators to delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was given by the London-West London & GTAC Research Ethics (21/LO/0402). This project will inform a potential future controlled study to assess intervention effectiveness in reducing the patient interval for vague cancer symptoms. The results will be critical to informing national policy and practice regarding behavioural interventions to support RDCs in highly deprived populations.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Quality of Life , Cross-Sectional Studies , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Referral and Consultation
3.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e055278, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1723800

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine coverage among individuals aged 50 years and above in England since the beginning of the programme. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study assessed by logistic regression and mean prevalence margins. SETTING: COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in England from 8 December 2020 to 17 May 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 30 624 257/61 967 781 (49.4%) and 17 360 045/61 967 781 (28.1%) individuals in England were recorded as vaccinated in the National Immunisation Management System with a first dose and a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: Vaccination status with COVID-19 vaccinations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion, adjusted ORs and mean prevalence margins for individuals not vaccinated with dose 1 among those aged 50-69 years and dose 1 and 2 among those aged 70 years and above. RESULTS: Of individuals aged 50 years and above, black/African/Caribbean ethnic group was the least likely of all ethnic groups to be vaccinated with dose 1 of the COVID-19 vaccine. However, of those aged 70 years and above, the odds of not having dose 2 was 5.53 (95% CI 5.42 to 5.63) and 5.36 (95% CI 5.29 to 5.43) greater among Pakistani and black/African/Caribbean compared with white British ethnicity, respectively. The odds of not receiving dose 2 was 1.18 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.20) higher among individuals who lived in a care home compared with those who did not. This was the opposite to that observed for dose 1, where the odds of being unvaccinated was significantly higher among those not living in a care home (0.89 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.91)). CONCLUSIONS: We found that there are characteristics associated with low COVID-19 vaccine coverage. Inequalities, such as ethnicity are a major contributor to suboptimal coverage and tailored interventions are required to improve coverage and protect the population from SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , England/epidemiology , Ethnicity , Humans , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
4.
J Infect ; 83(2): 237-279, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1225296

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 vaccination programme commenced in England on 8th December 2020 primarily based on age; by 7th March 2021 approximately 93% of the English population aged 70+ years had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer BioNTech or AstraZeneca vaccines. Using a nucleoprotein assay that detects antibodies following natural infection only and a spike assay that detects infection and vaccine-induced responses, we aim to describe the impact of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in English blood donors.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Aged , Antibody Formation , Blood Donors , England/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Humans , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Vaccination
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL