Psychological inoculation protects against the social media infodemic.

Misinformation can have a profound detrimental impact on populations' wellbeing. In this large UK-based online experiment (n = 2430), we assessed the performance of false tag and inoculation interventions in protecting against different forms of misinformation ('variants'). While previous experiments have used perception- or intention-based outcome measures, we presented participants with real-life misinformation posts in a social media platform simulation and measured their engagement, a more ecologically valid approach. Our pre-registered mixed-effects models indicated that both interventions reduced engagement with misinformation, but inoculation was most effective. However, random differences analysis revealed that the protection conferred by inoculation differed across posts. Moderation analysis indicated that immunity provided by inoculation is robust to variation in individuals' cognitive reflection. This study provides novel evidence on the general effectiveness of inoculation interventions over false tags, social media platforms' current approach. Given inoculation's effect heterogeneity, a concert of interventions will likely be required for future safeguarding efforts.

Patterns and predictors of adherence to health-protective measures during COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: cross-sectional and longitudinal findings from the HEBECO study.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to health-protective behaviours (regularly washing hands, wearing masks indoors, maintaining physical distancing, carrying disinfectant) remains paramount for the successful control of COVID-19 at population level. It is therefore important to monitor adherence and to identify factors associated with it. This study assessed: 1) rates of adherence, to key COVID-19 health-protective behaviours and 2) the socio-demographic, health and COVID-19-related factors associated with adherence. METHODS: Data were collected on a sample of UK-based adults during August-September 2020 (n = 1,969; lockdown restrictions were eased in the UK; period 1) and November 2020- January 2021 (n = 1944; second UK lockdown; period 2). RESULTS: Adherence ranged between 50-95%, with higher adherence during the period of stricter measures. Highest adherence was observed for wearing masks indoors (period 1: 80.2%, 95%CI 78.4%-82.0%, period 2: 92.4%, 95%CI 91.1%-93.6%) and lowest for carrying own disinfectant (period 1: 48.4%, 95%CI 46.2%-50.7%, period 2: 50.7%, 95%CI 48.4%-53.0%). Generalized estimating equation models indicated that key factors of greater odds of adherence included being female, older age, having higher income, residing in England, living with vulnerable individuals and perceived high risk of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted messages to different demographic groups may enhance adherence to health-protective behaviours, which is paramount for the control of airborne respiratory diseases. PROTOCOL AND ANALYSIS PLAN REGISTRATION: The analysis plan was pre-registered, and it is available at https://osf.io/6tnc9/ .

Impact of residual risk messaging to reduce false reassurance following test-negative results from asymptomatic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing: an online experimental study of a hypothetical test.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals who receive a negative lateral flow coronavirus test result may misunderstand it as meaning 'no risk of infectiousness', giving false reassurance. This experiment tested the impact of adding information to negative test result messages about residual risk and the need to continue protective behaviours. DESIGN: 4 (residual risk) × 2 (post-test result behaviours) between-subjects design. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: 1200 adults from a representative UK sample recruited via Prolific (12-15 March 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of eight messages. Residual risk messages were: (1) 'Your coronavirus test result is negative' (control); (2) message 1 plus 'It's likely you were not infectious when the test was done' (current NHS Test & Trace (T&T); (3) message 2 plus 'But there is still a chance you may be infectious' (elaborated NHS T&T); and (4) message 3 plus infographic depicting residual risk (elaborated NHS T&T+infographic). Each message contained either no additional information or information about the need to continue following guidelines and protective behaviours. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Proportion understanding residual risk of infectiousness and (2) likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours (scales 1-7). RESULTS: The control message decreased understanding relative to the current NHS T&T message: 54% versus 71% (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=0.56 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95, p=0.030). Understanding increased with the elaborated NHS T&T (89%; AOR=3.25 95% CI 1.64 to 6.42, p=0.001) and elaborated NHS T&T+infographic (91%; AOR=5.16 95% CI 2.47 to 10.82, p<0.001) compared with current NHS T&T message. Likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours was unaffected by information (AOR=1.11 95% CI 0.69 to 1.80, χ2(1)=0.18, p=0.669), being high (M=6.4, SD=0.9) across the sample. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of participants misunderstood the residual risk following a negative test result. The addition of a single sentence ('But there is still a chance you may be infectious') to current NHS T&T wording increased understanding of residual risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF: https://osf.io/byfz3/.

Location, location, location: a discrete choice experiment to inform COVID-19 vaccination programme delivery in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale vaccination is fundamental to combatting COVID-19. In March 2021, the UK's vaccination programme had delivered vaccines to large proportions of older and more vulnerable population groups; however, there was concern that uptake would be lower among young people. This research was designed to elicit the preferences of 18-29-year-olds regarding key delivery characteristics and assess the influence of these on intentions to get vaccinated, to inform planning for this cohort. METHODS: From 25 March to 2 April 2021, an online sample of 2012 UK adults aged 18-29 years participated in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Participants made six choices, each involving two SMS invitations to book a vaccination appointment and an opt-out. Invitations had four attributes (1 × 5 levels, 3 × 3 levels): delivery mode, appointment timing, proximity, and sender. These were systematically varied according to a d-optimal design. Responses were analysed using a mixed logit model. RESULTS: The main effects logit model revealed a large alternative-specific constant (ß = 1.385, SE = 0.067, p < 0.001), indicating a strong preference for 'opting in' to appointment invitations. Pharmacies were dispreferred to the local vaccination centre (ß = - 0.256, SE = 0.072, p < 0.001), appointments in locations that were 30-45 min travel time from one's premises were dispreferred to locations that were less than 15 min away (ß = - 0.408, SE = 0.054, p < 0.001), and, compared to invitations from the NHS, SMSs forwarded by 'a friend' were dispreferred (ß = - 0.615, SE = 0.056, p < 0.001) but invitations from the General Practitioner were preferred (ß = 0.105, SE = 0.048, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that the existing configuration of the UK's vaccination programme was well-placed to deliver vaccines to 18-29-year-olds; however, some adjustments might enhance acceptance. Local pharmacies were not preferred; long travel times were a disincentive but close proximity (0-15 min from one's premises) was not necessary; and either the 'NHS' or 'Your GP' would serve as adequate invitation sources. This research informed COVID-19 policy in the UK, and contributes to a wider body of Discrete Choice Experiment evidence on citizens' preferences, requirements and predicted behaviours regarding COVID-19.

Infection Control Behavior at Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study of a Web-Based Behavioral Intervention (Germ Defence).

BACKGROUND: To control the COVID-19 pandemic, people should adopt protective behaviors at home (self-isolation, social distancing, putting shopping and packages aside, wearing face coverings, cleaning and disinfecting, and handwashing). There is currently limited support to help individuals conduct these behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report current household infection control behaviors in the United Kingdom and examine how they might be improved. METHODS: This was a pragmatic cross-sectional observational study of anonymous participant data from Germ Defence between May 6-24, 2020. Germ Defence is an open-access fully automated website providing behavioral advice for infection control within households. A total of 28,285 users sought advice from four website pathways based on household status (advice to protect themselves generally, to protect others if the user was showing symptoms, to protect themselves if household members were showing symptoms, and to protect a household member who is at high risk). Users reported current infection control behaviors within the home and intentions to change these behaviors. RESULTS: Current behaviors varied across all infection control measures but were between sometimes (face covering: mean 1.61, SD 1.19; social distancing: mean 2.40, SD 1.22; isolating: mean 2.78, SD 1.29; putting packages and shopping aside: mean 2.75, SD 1.55) and quite often (cleaning and disinfecting: mean 3.17, SD 1.18), except for handwashing (very often: mean 4.00, SD 1.03). Behaviors were similar regardless of the website pathway used. After using Germ Defence, users recorded intentions to improve infection control behavior across all website pathways and for all behaviors (overall average infection control score mean difference 0.30, 95% CI 0.29-0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported infection control behaviors other than handwashing are lower than is optimal for infection prevention, although handwashing is much higher. Advice using behavior change techniques in Germ Defence led to intentions to improve these behaviors. Promoting Germ Defence within national and local public health and primary care guidance could reduce COVID-19 transmission.

Work-related and personal predictors of COVID-19 transmission: evidence from the UK and USA.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence of work-related and personal predictors of COVID-19 transmission. SETTING AND RESPONDENTS: Data are drawn from a population survey of individuals in the USA and UK conducted in June 2020. BACKGROUND METHODS: Regression models are estimated for 1467 individuals in which reported evidence of infection depends on work-related factors as well as a variety of personal controls. RESULTS: The following themes emerge from the analysis. First, a range of work-related factors are significant sources of variation in COVID-19 infection as indicated by self-reports of medical diagnosis or symptoms. This includes evidence about workplace types, consultation about safety and union membership. The partial effect of transport-related employment in regression models makes the chance of infection over three times more likely while in univariate analyses, transport-related work increases the risk of infection by over 40 times in the USA. Second, there is evidence that some home-related factors are significant predictors of infection, most notably the sharing of accommodation or a kitchen. Third, there is some evidence that behavioural factors and personal traits (including risk preference, extraversion and height) are also important. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes that predictors of transmission relate to work, transport, home and personal factors. Transport-related work settings are by far the greatest source of risk and so should be a focus of prevention policies. In addition, surveys of the sort developed in this paper are an important source of information on transmission pathways within the community.

Effectiveness of digital interventions to improve household and community infection prevention and control behaviours and to reduce incidence of respiratory and/or gastro-intestinal infections: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions have potential to efficiently support improved hygiene practices to reduce transmission of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for digital interventions to improve hygiene practices within the community. METHODS: We reviewed articles published between 01 January 2000 and 26 May 2019 that presented a controlled trial of a digital intervention to improve hygiene behaviours in the community. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and grey literature. Trials in hospitals were excluded, as were trials aiming at prevention of sexually transmitted infections; only target diseases with transmission mechanisms similar to COVID-19 (e.g. respiratory and gastrointestinal infections) were included. Trials had to evaluate a uniquely digital component of an intervention. Study designs were limited to randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after trials, and interrupted time series analyses. Outcomes could be either incidence of infections or change in hygiene behaviours. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: We found seven studies that met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported successfully improving self-reported hygiene behaviour or health outcomes, but only one of these six trials, Germ Defence, confirmed improvements using objective measures (reduced consultations and antibiotic prescriptions). Settings included kindergartens, workplaces, and service station restrooms. Modes of delivery were diverse: WeChat, website, text messages, audio messages to mobiles, electronic billboards, and electronic personal care records. Four interventions targeted parents of young children with educational materials. Two targeted the general population; these also used behaviour change techniques or theory to inform the intervention. Only one trial had low risk of bias, Germ Defence; the most common concerns were lack of information about the randomisation, possible bias in reporting of behavioural outcomes, and lack of an analysis plan and possible selective reporting of results. CONCLUSION: There was only one trial that was judged to be at low risk of bias, Germ Defence, which reduced incidence and severity of illness, as confirmed by objective measures. Further evaluation is required to determine the effectiveness of the other interventions reviewed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020189919 .

How We Cooperate, John E. Roemer,. Yale University Press, 2019, 248 pages

The newspapers are filled with headlines about R numbers, excess mortality, and saving the economy versus saving lives. [...]Roemer’s agents want to do the right thing, provided that they expect that others will act in a like manner. Roemer uses a variant of the game where the players get a strictly positive utility if they go to their preferred event alone, though less than they would get from going to either event together (see Fig. 2b). [...]Roemer shows that the mixed-strategy SKE (where the players assign each strategy a strictly positive probability and then randomize over them according to those probabilities) strictly dominates the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium, basically because the Kantian optimizers are willing to compromise more and go to the other player’s preferred activity with a higher probability.

Adapting Behavioral Interventions for a Changing Public Health Context: A Worked Example of Implementing a Digital Intervention During a Global Pandemic Using Rapid Optimisation Methods.

Background: A rigorous approach is needed to inform rapid adaptation and optimisation of behavioral interventions in evolving public health contexts, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. This helps ensure that interventions are relevant, persuasive, and feasible while remaining evidence-based. This paper provides a set of iterative methods to rapidly adapt and optimize an intervention during implementation. These methods are demonstrated through the example of optimizing an effective online handwashing intervention called Germ Defense. Methods: Three revised versions of the intervention were rapidly optimized and launched within short timeframes of 1-2 months. Optimisations were informed by: regular stakeholder engagement; emerging scientific evidence, and changing government guidance; rapid qualitative research (telephone think-aloud interviews and open-text surveys), and analyses of usage data. All feedback was rapidly collated, using the Table of Changes method from the Person-Based Approach to prioritize potential optimisations in terms of their likely impact on behavior change. Written feedback from stakeholders on each new iteration of the intervention also informed specific optimisations of the content. Results: Working closely with clinical stakeholders ensured that the intervention was clinically accurate, for example, confirming that information about transmission and exposure was consistent with evidence. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors identified important clarifications to intervention content, such as whether Covid-19 can be transmitted via air as well as surfaces, and ensured that information about difficult behaviors (such as self-isolation) was supportive and feasible. Iterative updates were made in line with emerging evidence, including changes to the information about face-coverings and opening windows. Qualitative research provided insights into barriers to engaging with the intervention and target behaviors, with open-text surveys providing a useful supplement to detailed think-aloud interviews. Usage data helped identify common points of disengagement, which guided decisions about optimisations. The Table of Changes was modified to facilitate rapid collation and prioritization of multiple sources of feedback to inform optimisations. Engagement with PPI informed the optimisation process. Conclusions: Rapid optimisation methods of this kind may in future be used to help improve the speed and efficiency of adaptation, optimization, and implementation of interventions, in line with calls for more rapid, pragmatic health research methods.

A randomized controlled trial to test the effect of simplified guidance with visuals on comprehension of COVID-19 guidelines and intention to stay home if symptomatic.

BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative that people understand and comply with self-isolation guidelines. We tested whether a simplified version of the guidelines and a simplified version with visual aids would affect comprehension and intention to self-isolate during the containment phase of the pandemic in the UK, in March 2020, compared to the standard guidelines. METHODS: We conducted an online, three-armed parallel randomized controlled trial. Participants were English and over 18. The survey software randomized them into conditions; they were blind to condition. The control group read the 7-page standard guidelines (the current version at the time of the trial). The intervention groups were given either a 3-page simplified version, with a summary box on the front page and numbered bullet points, or the same simplified version with pictograms illustrating the points in the box. Primary outcomes were comprehension of the guidelines, as measured by the number of correct answers given to six questions about the content, and the proportion who answered that they would 'definitely' stay at home for 7 days if symptomatic. FINDINGS: Recruitment was from 13 to 16 March 2020, with 1845 participants randomised and all data analysed. The Control group averaged 4.27 correct answers, the Simplified 4.20, and the Simplified + visual aids 4.13, out of a possible total of 6 correct answers. There were no differences in comprehension in the unadjusted models; however, when the model was adjusted for demographic variables, there was lower comprehension in the simplified + visual aids condition than in the control, (ß = - 0.16, p = 0.04998). There were no statistically significant differences in intention to stay home: Control was 85%, Simplified 83%, and Simplified + visual aids condition 84%. CONCLUSION: Simplified guidance did not improve comprehension compared to the standard guidance issued in the containment phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and simplified guidance with visual aids may even have worsened comprehension. Simplified guidance had no effect on intention to stay home if symptomatic. This trial informed COVID-19 policy and provides insights relevant to guidance production in the acute phase of a major public health emergency.