Antibiotic Review Kit for Hospitals (ARK-Hospital): a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (preprint)

Background Strategies to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitals depend on clinicians taking decisions to stop unnecessary antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence on how support clinicians do this effectively. We evaluated a multifaceted behaviour change intervention (ARK) which aims to reduce antibiotic consumption in hospitals by increasing decisions to stop antibiotics at clinical review. Methods We performed a stepped-wedge, hospital-level, cluster-randomised controlled trial using computer-generated sequence randomisation of 39 acute hospitals to 7 calendar-time blocks (12/February/2018–01/July/2019). Co-primary outcomes were monthly antibiotic defined-daily-doses (DDD) per acute/medical admission (organisation-level, superiority) and all-cause 30-day mortality (patient-level, non-inferiority, margin 5%). Clusters were eligible if they admitted non-elective medical patients, could identify an intervention “champion” and provide pre-intervention data from February/2016. Sites were followed up for a minimum of 14 months. Intervention effects were assessed using interrupted time series analyses in each cluster. Overall effects were derived through random-effects meta-analysis, using meta-regression to assess heterogeneity in effects across prespecified factors. Trial registration was ISRCTN12674243 . Findings Adjusted estimates showed a year-on-year reduction in antibiotic consumption (−4.8%, 95%CI: -9.1%,-0.2%, p=0.042) following the ARK intervention. Among 7,160,421 acute/medical admissions, we observed a -2.7% (95%CI: -5.7%,+0.3%, p=0.079) immediate and +3.0% (95%CI: - 0.1%,+6.2%, p=0.060) sustained change in adjusted 30-day mortality. This mortality trend was not related to the magnitude of antibiotic reduction achieved (Spearman’s ρ=0.011, p=0.949). Whilst 90-day mortality odds appeared to increase over time (+3.9%, 95%CI:+0.5%,+7.4%, p=0.023), this was not observed among admissions before COVID-19 onset (+3.2%, 95%CI:-1.5%,+8.2%, p=0.182). Length of hospital stay was unaffected. Interpretation The weak, inconsistent effects of the intervention on mortality are likely to be explained by the COVID-19 pandemic onset during the post-implementation phase. We conclude that the ARK-intervention resulted in sustained, safe reductions in hospital antibiotic use. Funding NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research, RP-PG-0514-20015. Research in context Evidence before this study Acutely ill patients often need to receive antibiotics before full diagnostic information is available. Consequently, reducing overuse of antibiotics in hospitals requires clinicians to review and where appropriate, stop unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. Evidence-based tools to support clinicians stop unnecessary antibiotics do not exist. We searched PubMed, with no language or date restrictions, on 31/January/2022 for clinical studies focused on improving antibiotic use for hospitalised adults using the terms “anti-bacterial agents therapeutic use” AND “antibiotic stewardship”. Among the 427 studies found, the great majority were uncontrolled evaluations of different approaches to education, decision support and feedback. These included one before-after study, which found no impact of unsupported clinician-led prescription review. Three small, hospital-level cluster-randomised trials were identified. One evaluated different approaches to feedback, one compared different hospital specialties and one found intense feedback to be effective. All were small and none considered clinical outcomes or sustainability. There is a need for research to deliver proven interventions ready for implementation into practice. Added value of this study We evaluated a multifaceted “Antibiotic Review Kit” (ARK) intervention to support prescribers to appropriately stop antibiotics at clinical review. ARK comprises a prescription decision-aid supported by a brief online training tool, guidance on implementation (including regular data collection and feedback) and a patient information leaflet. We found that the intervention was associated with a sustained reduction in hospital-level antibiotic use overall and of oral and narrow-spectrum antibiotics specifically. Weak trends were observed for 30-day mortality in opposite directions for immediate and sustained impact. Although there was a sustained increase in 90-day mortality after the intervention, this was only seen when analyses included patients admitted after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Taken together we conclude that these mortality effects are unrelated to the intervention. Implications of all available evidence The ARK intervention is safe and effective in reducing antibiotic use among adult medical hospital admissions. The tools used are now freely available for adoption into practice.

A qualitative process analysis of DCT as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19 (preprint)

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 devise (LFT) and 2 PCR tests as an alternative to 10 days of standard self-isolation with 1 PCR, following close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19. DCT appeared equivalent to self-isolation in terms of transmission in the trial, however it was not clear how tests were viewed and used in practice. In this qualitative study, we used a nested process 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 positive case of COVID-19 and had consented to take part in the trial. Results Sub-themes emerging from the 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 highly regarded as a way to 'return to new 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.

Exploration of attitudes regarding uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccine hesitant adults in the UK: A qualitative analysis (preprint)

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 those who were vaccine hesitant. 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 30-49 years who had not received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (more than 12 weeks after receiving a first). Results A total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose of the vaccine, and 35 had not received any vaccine. Participants described a possible willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe, and to avoid restrictions and return to normal. 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 the age and health status of the individual, trust in government and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may also 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 infection and transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted with regard to the possible long-term side-effects. These concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in the government, and misunderstanding of science. In order to promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that carefully 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.

A systematic review of observational methods used to quantify personal protective behaviours among members of the public during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the concordance between observational and self-report measures in infectious disease health protection (preprint)

Objectives: To assess the quantity and quality of studies using an observational measure of behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to narratively describe the association between self-report and observational data for behaviours relevant to controlling an infectious disease outbreak. Design: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of observational studies. Data sources: We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, Publons, Scopus and the Public Health England behavioural science LitRep database from inception to 17th September 2021 for relevant studies. Study selection: We included studies which collected observational data of at least one of three health protective behaviours (hand hygiene, face covering use and maintaining physical distance from others (social distancing) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies where observational data were compared to self-report data in relation to any infectious disease were also included. Data extraction and synthesis: We evaluated the quality of studies using the NIH quality assessment scale for observational studies, extracted data on sample size, setting and adherence to health protective behaviours, and synthesized results narratively. Results: Of 27,279 published papers on COVID-19 relevant health protective behaviours that included one or more terms relating to hand hygiene, face covering and social distancing, we identified 48 studies that included an objective observational measure. Of these, 35 assessed face covering use, 17 assessed hand hygiene behaviour and seven assessed physical distancing. The general quality of these studies was good. When expanding the search to all infectious diseases, we included 21 studies that compared observational versus self-report data. These almost exclusively studied hand hygiene. The difference in outcomes was striking, with self-report over-estimating observed adherence by up to a factor of five in some settings. In only four papers did self-report match observational data in any domains. Conclusions: Despite their importance in controlling the pandemic, we found remarkably few studies assessing protective behaviours by observation, rather than self-report, though these studies tended to be of reasonably good quality. Observed adherence tends to be substantially lower than estimates obtained via self-report. Accurate assessment of levels of personal protective behaviour, and evaluation of interventions to increase this, would benefit from the use of observational methods.

What influences whether parents recognise COVID-19 symptoms, request a test and self-isolate: A qualitative study (preprint)

BackgroundUsing test, trace and isolate systems can help reduce the spread of COVID-19. Parents have the additional responsibility of using these systems for themselves and acting on behalf of their children to help control COVID-19. We explored factors associated with the use of England’s NHS Test and Trace service among parents of school-aged children. MethodsOne-to-one telephone interviews with parents (n = 18) of school-aged (4 to 18 years) children living in England between 30 November to 11 December 2020. Data were explored using thematic analysis. ResultsThree themes and eight sub-themes emerged. In terms of recognising symptoms of COVID-19, parents needed prompting before recalling the main symptoms described by the NHS. Parents suggested several factors relating to the nature of the symptom(s) and contextual information that might lead to or prevent them from seeking a test. Although parents supported symptomatic testing, described trusting official sources of information (e.g., Government and NHS websites) and commonly reported no major concerns, minor concerns were raised regarding the accuracy of test results, safety at testing centres and logistics of testing. Parents perceived adherence to testing and self-isolation as pro-social behaviour, although family resources and circumstances impacted their ability to adhere fully. ConclusionsOur study identified several barriers to parents using NHS Test and Trace as needed. Information about the eligibility of testing (main symptoms of COVID-19 and the age of eligibility) needs to be more precise and resources provided to enable families to adhere to self-isolation if the efficiency of test, trace and isolate systems is to be optimised.

Is my cough a cold or covid? A qualitative study of COVID-19 symptom recognition and attitudes towards testing in the UK (preprint)

Objective Key to reducing the spread of COVID-19 in the UK is increased use of the NHS Test and Trace (NHSTT) system. This study explored one of the main issues that determine whether people engage with NHSTT, how people understand symptoms that may indicate the presence of COVID-19 and that should trigger a request for a test. Methods In this qualitative study, a series of semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 people (21 members of the general population, 19 students). There was nearly an equal split between male and female participants in both populations. Data were collected between 30 November and 11 December 2020 and explored using thematic analysis. There was substantial similarity in responses for both populations so we combined our results and highlighted where differences were present. Results Participants generally had good knowledge of the main symptoms of COVID-19 (high temperature, new, persistent cough, anosmia) but had low confidence in their ability to differentiate them from symptoms of other illnesses. Attribution of symptoms to COVID-19 was most likely where the symptoms were severe, many symptoms were present, symptoms had lasted for some time and when perceived risk of exposure to infection was high due to previous contact with others. Participants felt encouraged to engage in testing where symptoms were present and had persisted for several days, though many had concerns about the safety of testing centres and the accuracy of test results. Students had mixed feelings about mass asymptomatic testing, seeing it as a way to access a more normal student experience, but also a potential waste of resources. Conclusions This study offers novel insights into how people attribute symptoms to COVID-19 and barriers and facilitators to engaging with testing. Participants had positive views of testing, but there is a need to improve not just recognition of each main symptom, but also understanding that even single, mild symptoms may necessitate a test rather than a “wait and see” approach, and to address concerns around test accuracy to increase testing uptake.