Quarantine preparedness – the missing factor in COVID-19 behaviour change? Qualitative insights from Australia (preprint)

Background: A key feature of the global public health response to contain and slow the spread of COVID-19 has been community-based quarantine and self-isolation. As part of The Optimise Study, this research sought to understand the factors that influence people’s ability to undertake home-based quarantine and isolation to contain the spread of COVID-19. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative phone interviews (n=25) were conducted by telephone with people who participated in community-based quarantine in Australia before 31 March 2020. The Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour model was used to conduct a thematic analysis. Results: Participants required clear, accessible and trusted information to guide them in home-based quarantine and isolation. A sense of social responsibility and belief in the efficacy of the restrictions to reduce viral transmission aided their motivation. Access to essential needs, supportive living environments, and emotional support were required to adhere to restrictions, but few were prepared. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate that in addition to having the capability and motivation to adhere to restrictions, it is vital that people are also encouraged to prepare for the challenge to ensure access to physical, social and emotional support. Findings also illustrate the importance of engaging communities in planning and preparedness for quarantine and self-isolation public health responses.

Experience and Perspectives of Infection Prevention Staff of the COVID-19 Response in Australian Hospitals (preprint)

Background: Hospital infection prevention and control (IPC) staff have played a key role in adapting and implementing jurisdictional COVID-19 policy during the current pandemic. We aimed to describe the experiences of IPC staff in Australian hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform future pandemic preparedness plans. Methods: A cross-sectional study involving an online survey distributed to IPC practitioners employed in Australian hospitals. Survey content was informed by in-depth interviews, and addressed work conditions, redeployed workforce, personal protective equipment, communication, and guidelines. Participants were recruited through the mailing lists of Australasian College of Infection Prevention and Control and the Australasian Society of Infectious Diseases. Results: We received fully or partially completed responses from 160 participants, including 38 (24%) and 122 (76%) with nursing and medical backgrounds, respectively. Respondents reported access to sufficient information about PPE (75%, 114/152), PPE was of sufficient quantity (77%, 117/152) and was of sufficient quality (70%, 106/152). Barriers to infection prevention guideline implementation included frequently changing guidelines (57%, 84/148), timing of updates (65%, 96/148) and contradictory sources of information (64%, 95/148). Respondents described a need for better communication channels from government authorities to hospital IPC teams. All respondents described an increase in workload leading to difficulty completing work (63%, 97/154) and feeling burnt out (48% 74/154) Conclusions: These data identify avoidable barriers to implementation of COVID-19 infection prevention guidance in Australian hospitals. These findings can inform future national preparedness strategies.

Informing patients that they are at high risk for serious complications of viral infection increases vaccination rates (preprint)

For many vaccine-preventable diseases like influenza, vaccination rates are lower than optimal to achieve community protection. Those at high risk for infection and serious complications are especially advised to be vaccinated to protect themselves. Using influenza as a model, we studied one method of increasing vaccine uptake: informing high-risk patients, identified by a machine learning model, about their risk status. Patients (N=39,717) were evenly randomized to (1) a control condition (exposure only to standard direct mail or patient portal vaccine promotion efforts) or to be told via direct mail, patient portal, and/or SMS that they were (2) at high risk for influenza and its complications if not vaccinated; (3) at high risk according to a review of their medical records; or (4) at high risk according to a computer algorithm analysis of their medical records. Patients in the three treatment conditions were 5.7% more likely to get vaccinated during the 112 days post-intervention (p < .001), and did so 1.4 days earlier (p < .001), on average, than those in the control group. There were no significant differences among risk messages, suggesting that patients are neither especially averse to nor uniquely appreciative of learning their records had been reviewed or that computer algorithms were involved. Similar approaches should be considered for COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.