A survey of patient and public perceptions and awareness of SARS-CoV-2-related risks among participants in India and South Africa (preprint)

A cross-sectional survey was performed among the adult population of participating countries, India and South Africa. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions and awareness of SARS-CoV-2-related risks in the relevant countries. The main outcome measures were the proportion of participants aware of SARS-CoV-2, and their perception of infection risks. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data via a web- and paper-based survey over three months. For data capturing, Microsoft Excel was employed, and descriptive statistics used for presenting data. Pearsons Chi-squared test was used to assess relationships between variables, and a p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant. There were 844 respondents (India: n=660, South Africa: n=184; response rate 87.6%), with a 61.1% vs 38.3% female to male ratio. Post-high-school or university education was the lowest qualification reported by most respondents in India (77.3%) and South Africa (79.3%). Sources of information about the pandemic were usually media and journal publications (73.2%), social media (64.6%), family and friends (47.7%) and government websites (46.2%). Most respondents correctly identified infection prevention measures (such as physical distancing, mask use), with 90.0% reporting improved hand hygiene practices since the pandemic. Hesitancy or refusal to accept the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was reported among 17.9% and 50.9% of respondents in India and South Africa, respectively. Reasons cited included rushed vaccine development and the futility of vaccines for what respondents considered a self-limiting flu-like illness. Respondents identified public health promotion measures for SARS-CoV-2. Reported hesitancy to the up-take of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was much higher in South Africa. Vaccination campaigns should consider robust public engagement and contextually fit communication strategies with multimodal, participatory online and offline initiatives to address public concerns, specifically towards vaccines developed for this pandemic and general vaccine hesitancy.

Understanding adherence to self-isolation in the first phase of COVID-19 response (preprint)

Objective: To gain a better understanding of decisions around adherence to self-isolation advice during the first phase of the COVID-19 response in England. Design: A mixed-methods cross sectional study. Setting: England Participants COVID-19 cases and contacts who were contacted by Public Health England (PHE) during the first phase of the response in England (January-March 2020). Results: Of 250 respondents who were advised to self-isolate, 63% reported not leaving home at all during their isolation period, 20% reported leaving only for lower risk activities (dog walking or exercise) and 16% reported leaving for potentially higher risk, reasons (shopping, medical appointments, childcare, meeting family or friends). Factors associated with adherence to never going out included: the belief that following isolation advice would save lives, experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, being advised to stay in their room (rather than just inside), having help from outside and having regular contact by text message from PHE. Factors associated with non-adherence included being angry about the advice to isolate, being unable to get groceries delivered and concerns about losing touch with friends and family. Interviews highlighted that a sense of duty motivated people to adhere to isolation guidance and where people did leave their homes, these decisions were based on rational calculations of the risk of transmission; people would only leave their homes when they thought they were unlikely to come into contact with others. Conclusions: Measures of adherence should be nuanced to allow for the adaptations people make to their behaviour during isolation. Understanding adherence to isolation and associated reasoning during the early stages of the pandemic is an essential part of pandemic preparedness for future emerging infectious diseases.

Exploring the impact of shielding advice on the health and wellbeing of individuals identified as extremely vulnerable and advised to shield in Southwest England amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods evaluation (preprint)

Objective: Explore the impact and responses to public health advice on the health and wellbeing of individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) and advised to shield (not leave home for 12 weeks at start of the pandemic) in Southwest England during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Design: Mixed-methods study; structured survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Setting: Communities served by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group. Participants: 204 people (57% female, 54% >69 years, 94% White British, 64% retired) in Southwest England identified as CEV and were advised to shield completed the survey. Thirteen survey respondents participated in follow-up interviews (53% female, 40% >69years, 100% White British, 61% retired). Results: Receipt of official communication from NHS England or General Practitioner (GP) was considered by participants as the legitimate start of shielding. 80% of survey responders felt they received all relevant advice needed to shield, yet interviewees criticised the timing of advice and often sought supplementary information. Shielding behaviours were nuanced, adapted to suit personal circumstances, and waned over time. Few interviewees received community support, although food boxes and informal social support were obtained by some. Worrying about COVID-19 was common for survey responders (90%). Since shielding had begun, physical and mental health reportedly worsened for 35% and 42% of survey responders respectively. 21% of survey responders scored 10 or more on the PHQ-9 questionnaire indicating possible depression and 15% scored 10 or more on the GAD-7 questionnaire indicating possible anxiety. Conclusions: This research highlights the difficulties in providing generic messaging that is applicable and appropriate given the diversity of individuals identified as CEV and the importance of sharing tailored and timely advice to inform shielding decisions. Providing messages that reinforce self-determined action and assistance from support services could reduce the negative impact of shielding on mental health and feelings of social isolation.

Learning about COVID-19 across borders: Public health information and adherence among international travellers to the UK (preprint)

ObjectivePublic health control measures at borders have long been central to national strategies for the prevention and containment of infectious diseases. Travel was inevitably associated with the rapid global transmission of COVID-19. In the UK, public health authorities took action to reduce risks of travel-associated spread by providing public health information at ports of entry. This study aims to understand individual risk assessment processes, decision making, and adherence to official advice among international travellers; to provide evidence to inform future policy on the presentation of public health information to facilitate safer international travel. Study designThis study is a qualitative study evaluation. MethodSemi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate risk assessment processes, decision making, and adherence to official Public Health England (PHE) advice among travellers. ResultsParticipants regarded official advice as adequate at the time, despite observing differences between the intervention measures implemented in the countries of departure. Participants however also described adopting precautionary measures including self-isolation and the use of face coverings that went beyond official advice, and variability in the extent to which they adhered to guidance on contacting health authorities. Adherence to official guidance was informed by the perceived salience of specific transmission possibilities and containment measures assessed in relation to participants social and institutional environments. ConclusionAnalysis of travellers reported motivations demonstrates that responses to public health advice constitute a proactive process of risk assessment and rationalised decision-making that incorporates consideration of living situation, trust in information sources, correspondence with cultural logics, and willingness to accept potential risk to self and significant others in guiding preventive action. Our findings concerning international passengers understanding of, and compliance with, official advice and mitigation measures provide valuable evidence to inform future policy and we provide recommendations on the presentation of public health information to facilitate safer international travel. Access to a central source of regularly updated official information would help minimise confusion between different national guidelines. Greater attention to the differentiated information needs of diverse groups in creating future public-facing guidance would help to minimise the uncertainties generated by receipt of generic information.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Primary Health Care and Antibiotic Prescribing in Rural China: Qualitative Study (preprint)

Background: Primary health care (PHC) system is designated to be responsible for epidemic control and prevention during the outbreak of COVID-19 in China, while COVID-19 suspected cases in PHC are required to be transferred to specialist fever clinics at higher level hospitals. This study aims to understand to impact of COVID-19 on PHC delivery and antibiotic prescribing at community level in the rural areas of central China.Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 PHC practitioners and seven patients recruited from two township health centres and nine village clinics in two rural residential areas of Anhui province. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.Results: Practitioners’ and patients’ views and perspectives on COVID-19 impacts on PHC services and antibiotic prescribing are organised into four broad themes. PHC practitioners took on a key public health role of tracing, screening and educating in rural areas, while their original role in seeing and treating patients was reduced since government required patients to be diverted. The additional work, risk, and financial pressure that PHC practitioners faced placed considerable strain on them, particularly those working in the village clinics. PHC largely diminished that related to the difficulty of PHC workforce with limited medical training and the high number of elderly patients in rural areas, and as a result of epidemic, rural patients found it more difficult to access health care. Antibiotic prescribing practices for non-COVID-19 respiratory tract infections remained unchanged and were not seen as relevant to practitioners’ knowledge of COVID-19, although overall antibiotic treatments were reduced because fewer patients were attending rural PHC clinics. Conclusions: Our study identified the considerable impact of COVID-19 epidemic on PHC in rural China. Since COVID-19 epidemic control work has been designated as a long-term task in China, rural PHC clinics now face the challenge of how to balance their principal clinical and prevention and public health roles and, in the case of the village clinics, remain financially viable.

The impact of COVID-19 on primary health care and antibiotic prescribing in rural China: qualitative study (preprint)

Introduction Primary health care (PHC) system is designated to be responsible for epidemic control and prevention during the outbreak of COVID-19 in China, while COVID-19 suspected cases in PHC are required to be transferred to specialist fever clinics at higher level hospitals. This study aims to understand to impact of COVID-19 on PHC delivery and antibiotic prescribing at community level in the rural areas of central China. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 PHC practitioners and seven patients recruited from two township health centres (THCs) and nine village clinics (VCs) in two rural residential areas of Anhui province. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Results Practitioners' and patients' views and perspectives on COVID-19 impacts on PHC services and antibiotic prescribing are organised into four broad themes: switch from PHC to epidemic prevention and control, concerns and challenges faced by those delivering PHC, diminished PHC, and COVID-19 as a different class of illness. Conclusion The COVID-19 epidemic has had a considerable impact on the roles of rural PHC clinics in China that shifted to public health from principal medical, and highlighted the difficulties in rural PHC including inadequately trained practitioners, additional work and financial pressure, particularly in VCs. Antibiotic prescribing practices for non-COVID-19 respiratory tract infections remained unchanged since the knowledge of COVID-19 was not seen as relevant to practitioners' antibiotic treatment practices, although overall rates were reduced because fewer patients were attending rural PHC clinics. Since COVID-19 epidemic control work has been designated as a long-term task in China, rural PHC clinics now face the challenge of how to balance their principal clinical and public health roles and, in the case of the VCs, remain financially viable. Keywords COVID-19, antibiotic treatment, township health centre, village clinic, epidemic prevention and control

Antimicrobial use in COVID-19 patients in the first phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Rapid review and evidence synthesis (preprint)

Background As the numbers of people with COVID-19 continue to increase globally, concerns have been raised regarding the widespread use of antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and its consequences for antimicrobial resistance during the pandemic and beyond. The scale and determinants of antibiotic use in the early phase of the pandemic, and whether antibiotic prescribing is beneficial to treatment effectiveness in COVID-19 patients, are still unknown. Unwarranted treatment of this viral infection with antibiotics may exacerbate the problem of antibiotic resistance, while antibiotic resistance may render presumptive treatment of secondary infections in COVID-19 patients ineffective. Methods This rapid review was undertaken to identify studies reporting antimicrobial use in the treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients. The review was conducted to comply with PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews ( http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/ScopingReviews ) and the protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF): http://osf.io/vp6t5 . The following databases: Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, CNKI & VIP were searched to identify the relevant studies from 1 Dec 2019 up to 15 June 2020; no limits were set on the language or the country where studies were conducted. The search terms used were: ((“Covid-19” or “SARS-CoV-2” or “Coronavirus disease 2019” or “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2”) and ((“antibiotic prescribing” or “antibiotic use” or “antibiotic*”) or “antimicrobial *” or “antimicrobial therapy” or “antimicrobial resistance” or “antimicrobial stewardship”)). A total of 1216 records were identified through database searching and 118 clinical studies met the inclusion criteria and were taken into data extraction. A bespoke data extraction form was developed and validated through two independent, duplicate extraction of data from five Records. As all the included studies were descriptive in nature, we conducted descriptive synthesis of data and reported pooled estimates such as mean, percentage and frequency. We created a series of scenarios to capture the range of rationales for antibiotic prescribing presented in the included studies. Results Our results show that during the early phase of the pandemic, 8501 out of 10 329 COVID-19 patients (82·3%) were prescribed antibiotics; antibiotics were prescribed for COVID-19 patients regardless of reported severity, with a similar mean antibiotic prescribing rate between patients with severe or critical illness (75·4%) and patients with mild or moderate illness (75·1%). The top five frequently prescribed antibiotics for hospitalised COVID-19 patients were azithromycin (28·0 % of studies), ceftriaxone (17·8%), moxifloxacin (14·4%), meropenem (14·4%) and piperacillin/tazobactam (12·7%). The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics without clinical justification was 51·5% vs 41·9 % for patients with mild or moderate illness and those with severe or critical illness respectively. Comparison of patients who were provided antibiotics with a clinical justification with those who were given antibiotics without clinical justification showed lower mortality rates (9·5% vs 13·1%), higher discharge rates (80·9% vs 69·3%) and shorter length of hospital of stay (9·3 days vs 12·2 days). Only 9·7% of patients in our included studies were reported to have secondary infections. Conclusions Antibiotics were prescribed indiscriminately for hospitalised COVID-19 patients regardless of severity of illness during the early phase of the pandemic. COVID-19 related concerns and lack of knowledge drove a large proportion of antibiotic use without specific clinical justification. Although we are still in the midst of the pandemic, the goals of antimicrobial stewardship should remain unchanged for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Understanding patterns of adherence to COVID-19 mitigation measures: A qualitative interview study. (preprint)

In an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19, the UK government has introduced a series of mitigation measures. The success of these measures in preventing transmission is dependent on adherence, which is currently considered to be low. Evidence highlights the disproportionate impact of mitigation measures on individuals from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, as well as among those on a low income, and an understanding of barriers to adherence in these populations is needed. In this qualitative study we examined patterns of adherence to mitigation measures and reasons underpinning these behaviors among people on low income and those from BAME communities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants from BAME and low-income White backgrounds. The topic guide was designed to explore how individuals are adhering to social distancing and self-isolation measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore in detail the reasons underpinning this behavior. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis following which charts were used to help compare concepts within and between participants and develop an understanding of patterns of adherence. Participants were confused by the constantly changing and seemingly contradictory rules and guidance. As a result, decisions were made about how best to protect themselves and their household from COVID-19, and from the detrimental impact of lockdown restrictions. This was not always in line with government advice. We identified three categories of adherence to lockdown measures 1) caution motivated super-adherence 2) risk-adapted partial-adherence and 3) necessity-driven partial-adherence. Decisions about adherence considered potential for exposure to the virus, ability to reduce risk through use of protective measures, and perceived importance of/need for the behavior. This research highlights a need for a more nuanced understanding of adherence to lockdown measures. Provision of practical and financial support could reduce the number of people who have to engage in necessity-driven partial-adherence. Information about viral transmission could help people assess the risk associated with partial-adherence more accurately. More evidence is required on population level risks of people adopting risk-adapted partial-adherence.

Public health information on COVID-19 for international travellers: Lessons learned from a rapid mixed-method evaluation in the UK containment phase (preprint)

Introduction In the containment phase of the response to the COVID-19 outbreak, Public Health England (PHE) delivered advice to travellers arriving at major UK ports. We aimed to rapidly evaluate the impact and effectiveness of these communication materials for passengers in the early stages of the pandemic. Methods In stage I (Patient and Public Involvement, PPI) we interviewed seven travellers who had returned from China in January and February 2020. We used these results to develop a questionnaire and topic guides for stage II, a cross-sectional survey and follow-up interviews with passengers arriving at London Heathrow Airport on scheduled flights from China and Singapore. The survey assessed passengers' knowledge of symptoms, actions to take and attitudes towards PHE COVID-19 public health information; interviews explored their views of official public health information and self-isolation. Results In stage II, 121 passengers participated in the survey and 15 in follow-up interviews. 83% of surveyed passengers correctly identified all three COVID-19 associated symptoms listed in PHE information at that time. Most could identify the recommended actions and found the advice understandable and trustworthy. Interviews revealed that passengers shared concerns about the lack of wider official action, and that passengers' knowledge had been acquired elsewhere as much from PHE. Respondents also noted their own agency in choosing to self-isolate, partially as a self-protective measure. Conclusion PHE COVID-19 public health information was perceived as clear and acceptable, but we found that passengers acquired knowledge from various sources and they saw the provision of information alone on arrival as an insufficient official response. Our study provides fresh insights into the importance of taking greater account of diverse information sources and of the need for public assurance in creating public health information materials to address global health threats. Keywords COVID-19, public health advice, government, policy, airport, international travel

Factors associated with self-reported anxiety, depression, and general health during the UK lockdown; a cross-sectional survey (preprint)

Background: To investigate factors associated with anxiety, depression, and self-reported general health during "lockdown" due to COVID-19 in the UK. Methods: Online cross-sectional survey of a nationally-representative sample of 2240 participants living in the UK aged 18 years or over (data collected 6-7 May 2020). Participants were recruited from YouGov's online research panel. Outcomes: In this sample, 21.9% (n=458, 95% CI [20.1% to 23.7%]) reported probable anxiety (scored three or over on the GAD-2); while 23.5% (n=494, 95% CI [21.7% to 25.3]) reported probable depression (scored three or over on the PHQ-2). Poorer mental health was associated with greater financial hardship during the lockdown, thinking that you would lose contact with friends or family if you followed Government measures, more conflict with household members during the lockdown, less sense of community with people in your neighbourhood, and lower perceived effectiveness of Government measures. Females and those who were younger were likely to report higher levels of anxiety and depression. The majority of participants reported their general health as "good" (as measured by the first item of the SF-36). Poorer self-reported general health was associated with psychological distress, greater worry about COVID-19 and markers of inequality. Interpretation: Rates of self-reported anxiety and depression in the UK during the lockdown were greater than population norms. Reducing financial hardship, promoting social connectedness, and increasing solidarity with neighbours and household members may help ease rifts within the community which are associated with distress, thereby improving mental health. Reducing inequality may also improve general health.

Factors associated with adherence to self-isolation and lockdown measures in the UK; a cross-sectional survey (preprint)

Objectives: To investigate factors associated with adherence to self-isolation and lockdown measures due to COVID-19 in the UK. Design: Online cross-sectional survey. Setting: Data were collected between 6th and 7th May 2020. Participants: 2240 participants living in the UK aged 18 years or over. Participants were recruited from YouGov's online research panel. Main outcome measures: Having gone out in the last 24 hours in those who reported symptoms of COVID-19 in their household. Having gone out shopping for items other than groceries, toiletries or medicines (non-essentials), and total number of outings, in the last week in those who reported no symptoms of COVID-19 in their household. Results: 217 people (9.7%) reported that they or someone in their household had symptoms of COVID-19 (cough or high temperature / fever) in the last seven days. Of these people, 75.1% had left the home in the last 24 hours (defined as non-adherent). Factors associated with non-adherence were being male, less worried about COVID-19, and perceiving a smaller risk of catching COVID-19. Adherence was associated with having received help from someone outside your household. Results should be taken with caution as there was no evidence for associations when controlling for multiple analyses. Of people reporting no symptoms in the household, 24.5% had gone out shopping for non-essentials in the last week (defined as non-adherent). Factors associated with non-adherence and with a higher total number of outings in the last week included decreased perceived effectiveness of Government "lockdown" measures, decreased perceived severity of COVID-19, and decreased estimates of how many other people were following lockdown rules. Having received help was associated with better adherence. Conclusions: Adherence to self-isolation is poor. As we move into a new phase of contact tracing and self-isolation, it is essential that adherence is improved. Communications should aim to increase knowledge about actions to take when symptomatic or if you have been in contact with a possible COVID-19 case. They should also emphasise the risk of catching and spreading COVID-19 when out and about and the effectiveness of preventative measures. Using volunteer networks effectively to support people in isolation may promote adherence.