ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundUK local authorities that experience high sustained levels of COVID-19 prevalence are termed areas of enduring prevalence (AEP) according to SAGE (2021). A study was carried out as part of the PROTECT National Core Study on Transmission and Environment, to investigate reasons for sustained high prevalence, along with mitigation strategies employed by Directors of Public Health (DsPH).MethodsInterviews were conducted with DsPH in 19 local authority areas across England, between July and October 2021. This included nine areas identified as AEP and ten comparison areas (CA), including statistical neighbours of the AEP (PHE, 2019) that had not experienced enduring prevalence. DsPH were asked about factors contributing to enduring prevalence, along with mitigating strategies employed during the pandemic.ResultsParticipants identified various factors associated with enduring prevalence, including high deprivation levels, overcrowded housing, and low vaccination rates. Deprivation and employment were often jointly discussed as creating major barriers for people to be able to sef-isolate or work remotely. Not receiving sick pay, working on zero-hours contracts or in insecure employment were associated with inability to self-isolate. There were strong similarities in the drivers of enduring prevalence described by DsPH in the AEP and CA. All participants asserted that there were differences in these drivers between wards or geographical areas within their local authority area, and between different groups of people, including people from different and age groups and ethnic backgrounds.Participants in the AEP were more likely to discuss the impact of structural factors such as deprivation or work insecurity. All DsPH implemented a variety of effective mitigation strategies over the course of the pandemic, including local contact tracing, local testing and vaccination efforts, isolation support, communication campaigns, engagement with business and education, and community engagement.ConclusionThe research shows that deprivation, employment and housing, along with vaccination rates, are key drivers of COVID-19 prevalence. Work related factors such as insecurity and absence of sick pay may influence behaviours and increase the risk of virus transmission. DsPH advised that more research is needed on the factors that drive prevalence, on the effectiveness of mitigation strategies, and on the long-term impacts of the pandemic, including the impact on health inequalities and on the wider system for recovery.
ABSTRACT
Background: During a pandemic, public transport is strategically important for keeping the country going and getting people where they need to be. The essential nature of public transport puts into focus the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in this sector; rapid and diverse work has been done to attempt to understand how transmission happens in this context and what factors influence risk. Objectives: This review aimed to provide a narrative overview of the literature assessing transmission, or potential for transmission, of SARS-CoV-2 on ground-based public transport, as well as studies assessing the effectiveness of control measures on public transport during the early part of the pandemic (up to May 2021). Methods: An electronic search was conducted using Web of Science, Ovid, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Pubmed, and the WHO global COVID database. Searches were run between December 2020 and May 2021. Results: The search strategy identified 734 papers, of which 28 papers met the inclusion criteria for the review; 10 papers assessed transmission of SARS-CoV-2, 11 assessed control measures, and seven assessed levels of contamination. Eleven papers were based on modelling approaches; 17 studies were original studies reporting empirical COVID-19 data. Conclusions: The literature is heterogeneous, and there are challenges for measurement of transmission in this setting. There is evidence for transmission in certain cases, and mixed evidence for the presence of viral RNA in transport settings; there is also evidence for some reduction of risk through mitigation. However, the routes of transmission and key factors contributing to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 on public transport were not clear during the early stage of the pandemic. Gaps in understanding are discussed and six key questions for future research have been posed. Further exploration of transmission factors and effectiveness of mitigation strategies is required in order to support decision making.