Implementation in an emergency: Qualitative longitudinal research on the experience of implementing Covid-19 prevention in English schools

Implementation studies rarely examine how health interventions are delivered in emergencies. Informed by May's general theory of implementation (GTI), we undertook qualitative longitudinal research to investigate how schools in England implemented Covid-19-prevention measures and how this evolved over the 2020–2021 school year in a rapidly changing epidemiological and policy context. We conducted 74 semi-structured interviews over two time-points with headteachers, teachers, parents and students across eight primary and secondary schools. School leaders rapidly made sense of government guidance despite many challenges. They developed and disseminated prevention plans to staff, parents and students. As defined by GTI, ‘cognitive participation' and ‘collective action' to enact handwashing, one-way systems within schools and enhanced cleaning were sustained over time. However, measures such as physical distancing and placing students in separated groups were perceived to conflict with schools' mission to promote student education and wellbeing. Commitment to implement these was initially high during the emergency phase but later fluctuated dependant on perceived risk and local disease epidemiology. They were not considered sustainable in the long term. Adherence to some measures, such as wearing face-coverings, initially considered unworkable, improved as they were routinised. Implementing home-based asymptomatic testing was considered feasible. Formal and informal processes of ‘reflexive monitoring' by staff informed improvements in intervention workability and implementation. Leaders also developed skills and confidence, deciding on locally appropriate actions, some of which deviated from official guidance. However, over time, accumulating staff burnout and absence eroded school capacity to collectively enact implementation. Qualitative longitudinal research allowed us to understand how implementation in an emergency involved the above emergent processes. GTI was useful in understanding school implementation processes in a pandemic context but may need adaptation to take into account the changing and sometimes contradictory objectives, time-varying factors and feedback loops that can characterise implementation of health interventions in emergencies.

Qualitative longitudinal research on the experience of implementing Covid-19 prevention in English schools.

Implementation studies rarely examine how health interventions are delivered in emergencies. Informed by May's general theory of implementation (GTI), we undertook qualitative longitudinal research to investigate how schools in England implemented Covid-19-prevention measures and how this evolved over the 2020-2021 school year in a rapidly changing epidemiological and policy context. We conducted 74 semi-structured interviews over two time-points with headteachers, teachers, parents and students across eight primary and secondary schools. School leaders rapidly made sense of government guidance despite many challenges. They developed and disseminated prevention plans to staff, parents and students. As defined by GTI, 'cognitive participation' and 'collective action' to enact handwashing, one-way systems within schools and enhanced cleaning were sustained over time. However, measures such as physical distancing and placing students in separated groups were perceived to conflict with schools' mission to promote student education and wellbeing. Commitment to implement these was initially high during the emergency phase but later fluctuated dependant on perceived risk and local disease epidemiology. They were not considered sustainable in the long term. Adherence to some measures, such as wearing face-coverings, initially considered unworkable, improved as they were routinised. Implementing home-based asymptomatic testing was considered feasible. Formal and informal processes of 'reflexive monitoring' by staff informed improvements in intervention workability and implementation. Leaders also developed skills and confidence, deciding on locally appropriate actions, some of which deviated from official guidance. However, over time, accumulating staff burnout and absence eroded school capacity to collectively enact implementation. Qualitative longitudinal research allowed us to understand how implementation in an emergency involved the above emergent processes. GTI was useful in understanding school implementation processes in a pandemic context but may need adaptation to take into account the changing and sometimes contradictory objectives, time-varying factors and feedback loops that can characterise implementation of health interventions in emergencies.

Implementation of COVID-19 Preventive Measures and Staff Well-Being in a Sample of English Schools 2020-2021.

BACKGROUND: We examined fidelity and feasibility of implementation of COVID-19 preventive measures in schools, and explored associations between adherence to these measures and staff well-being, to inform policy on sustainable implementation and staff wellbeing. METHODS: Surveys were conducted across 128 schools in England with 107 headteachers and 2698 staff-members with reference to autumn term 2020, examining school-level implementation of preventive measures, adherence, and teacher burnout (response rates for headteacher and staff surveys were 84% and 59%, respectively). RESULTS: The median number of measures implemented in primary and secondary schools was 33 (range 23-41), and 32 (range 22-40), respectively; most measures presented challenges. No differences were found regarding number of measures implemented by school-level socio-economic disadvantage. High adherence was reported for staff wearing face-coverings, staff regularly washing their hands, (secondary only) desks facing forwards, and (primary only) increased cleaning of surfaces and student hand-washing. Adherence to most measures was reported as higher in primary than secondary schools. Over half of school leaders and 42% (517/1234) of other teaching staff suffered from high emotional exhaustion. Higher teacher-reported school-wide adherence with measures was consistently associated with lower burnout for leaders and other teaching staff. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate a tremendous effort in implementing preventive measures and an urgent need to support investments in improving teacher wellbeing.

Living with COVID-19 and preparing for future pandemics: revisiting lessons from the HIV pandemic.

In April, 2020, just months into the COVID-19 pandemic, an international group of public health researchers published three lessons learned from the HIV pandemic for the response to COVID-19, which were to: anticipate health inequalities, create an enabling environment to support behavioural change, and engage a multidisciplinary effort. We revisit these lessons in light of more than 2 years' experience with the COVID-19 pandemic. With specific examples, we detail how inequalities have played out within and between countries, highlight factors that support or impede the creation of enabling environments, and note ongoing issues with the scarcity of integrated science and health system approaches. We argue that to better apply lessons learned as the COVID-19 pandemic matures and other infectious disease outbreaks emerge, it will be imperative to create dialogue among polarised perspectives, identify shared priorities, and draw on multidisciplinary evidence.

Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection among staff and students in a cohort of English primary and secondary schools during 2020-2021.

Background: There remains uncertainty about the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 among school students and staff and the extent to which non-pharmaceutical-interventions reduce the risk of school settings. Methods: We conducted an open cohort study in a sample of 59 primary and 97 secondary schools in 15 English local authority areas that were implementing government guidance to schools open during the pandemic. We estimated SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence among those attending school, antibody prevalence, and antibody negative to positive conversion rates in staff and students over the school year (November 2020-July 2021). Findings: 22,585 staff and students participated. SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence among those attending school was highest during the first two rounds of testing in the autumn term, ranging from 0.7% (95% CI 0.2, 1.2) among primary staff in November 2020 to 1.6% (95% CI 0.9, 2.3) among secondary staff in December 2020. Antibody conversion rates were highest in the autumn term. Infection patterns were similar between staff and students, and between primary and secondary schools. The prevalence of nucleoprotein antibodies increased over the year and was lower among students than staff. SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence in the North-West region was lower among secondary students attending school on normal school days than the regional estimate for secondary school-age children. Interpretation: SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence in staff and students attending school varied with local community infection rates. Non-pharmaceutical interventions intended to prevent infected individuals attending school may have partially reduced the prevalence of infection among those on the school site. Funding: UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Lifting lockdown policies: A critical moment for COVID-19 stigma.

COVID-19 'lockdown' policies may have unintended consequences for individuals, households and country economies. Hence lockdown may be unsustainable despite the risk of a resurgence of new COVID-19 infections. The repeal and alteration of lockdown policies mark a symbolic transfer of responsibility for epidemic control from state to individual. This has the potential to catalyse fear, blame and judgement within and between populations. We draw on experience from the HIV pandemic to show that this will worsen during later phases of the pandemic if COVID-19 stigma increases, as we fear it could. We suggest policy recommendations for 'lockdown lifting' to limit COVID-19 stigma. We suggest three policy priorities to minimise potential increases in COVID-19 stigma: limit fear by strengthening risk communication, engage communities to reduce the emergence of blaming, and emphasise social justice to reduce judgement. 'Lockdown' policies cannot continue uninterrupted. However, lifting lockdown without unintended consequences may prove harder than establishing it. This period has the potential to see the emergence of fear, blame and judgement, intersecting with existing inequalities, as governments seek to share responsibility for preventing further Sars-Cov-2 transmission. As we have learned from HIV, it is critical that a wave of COVID-19 stigma is prevented from flourishing.