Barriers and enablers to delivering opportunistic behaviour change interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study in healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: In line with public health policy, healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in the UK's National Health Service (NHS) are encouraged to deliver opportunistic health behaviour change interventions during routine consultations. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare delivery has been wide-ranging, but little is known about how the pandemic has affected the delivery of health behaviour change interventions. The present study aimed to examine the barriers and enablers to delivering opportunistic behaviour change interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Twenty-five qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted in January 2022 with a range of patient-facing healthcare professionals (including nurses, physiotherapists, dieticians, doctors and midwives) working in the NHS. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two overarching themes were generated: (1) the healthcare system's response to COVID-19, and (2) maintaining good HCP-patient relationships: reluctance and responsibility. COVID-19-related barriers included exacerbated staffing pressures and a perceived inability to use IT equipment to facilitate conversations about health behaviour change (due to poor internet connectivity or ill-equipped platforms). COVID-19-related enablers included the use of video consultations enabling less awkward and more honest conversations about health behaviours. However, some barriers and enablers remained the same as pre-pandemic, such as issues of role responsibility for discussing health behaviour change with patients, balancing holistic wellbeing advice with maintaining positive patient-HCP relationships, and reluctance to deliver opportunistic behaviour change interventions. DISCUSSION: The increased use of remote consultations may facilitate the delivery of opportunistic health behaviour change interventions by healthcare professionals. However, there is also a strong need to improve staffing levels, in order that staff have the psychological and physical capabilities to engage patients in these conversations.

Identifying targets for interventions to support public use of face coverings.

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.

Barriers and enablers to accessing support services offered by staff wellbeing hubs: A qualitative study

Background International efforts have been made to develop appropriate interventions to support the mental health needs of healthcare professionals in response to COVID-19. However, fewer staff have accessed these than expected, despite experiencing elevated levels of mental distress since the onset of the pandemic. Consequently, we aimed to examine the barriers and enablers for healthcare professionals in accessing interventions offered by a Staff Mental Health and Wellbeing Hub. Methods Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare, social care and voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector staff. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Four key themes were identified: (1) Environment and Atmosphere in the Workplace;(2) The Impacts of COVID-19;(3) Confidentiality;and (4) Awareness and Communication of Resources. Organisational environments were perceived as an important enabler of accessing the hub services for mental health and wellbeing support. This included the importance of recognising and responding to the ongoing pressures of COVID-19- specific challenges. Ensuring and communicating aspects of confidentiality, and ensuring clear and consistent communication of the benefits of the Hub may encourage help-seeking for mental health challenges among healthcare professionals. Discussion Our findings highlight important considerations to increase uptake and engagement with services to support the mental health and wellbeing of healthcare professionals and associated staff and volunteers. Organisations aiming to increase employee uptake of these services should regularly circulate consistent and clear emails about what these services offer, provide training and information for managers so they can support staff to access these services and ensure access is confidential.

"We want to live a little longer and our family want[s] us around": A summative content analysis of adherence to COVID-19-related guidelines using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

OBJECTIVE: Public adherence to COVID-19-related government guidance varied during the initial lockdown in the UK, but the determinants of public adherence to such guidance are unclear. We capture spontaneous reflections on adherence to UK government guidance from a representative UK sample, and use the TDF to identify key determinants of COVID-related behaviours. DESIGN: The design was cross-sectional. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected from a large sample of UK adults (N = 2,252) via an online questionnaire as part of a wider survey about the UK public's responses to the government's COVID-19-related guidance. Summative content analysis was used to identify key guideline terms in the data, followed by latent analysis to interpret the underlying meanings behind the terms using the TDF as an analytical framework. RESULTS: Six TDF domains were identified in the data: Environmental Context and Resources; Beliefs about Consequences; Social Influences; Memory, Attention and Decision Processes; Emotion; and Knowledge. Although the samples were motivated and capable of adhering, limitations in their environments, resources, and social support mechanisms restricted behaviour. Self-reported adherence was sensitive to positive and negative beliefs about the effectiveness of the measures, in addition to interpretations of the terms 'essential' and 'necessary' in the guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive structural obstacles to adherence, the majority of the British public were able to follow government COVID-19-related instructions, provided they had sufficient resources, social support, and positive perceptions about the effectiveness of the measures. Ambiguities surrounding key terminology in the guidance left room for interpretation, which may have contributed to non-adherence.

The association between COVID-19-related fear and reported self-harm in a national survey of people with a lifetime history of self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the characteristics of people living in the community who have previously self-harmed and may benefit from interventions during and after COVID-19. We therefore aimed to: (a) examine the relationship between reported self-harm and COVID-19-related fear, and (b) describe the characteristics of a community sample of people who reported a lifetime history of self-harm. METHODS: A cross-sectional national online survey of UK adults who reported a lifetime history of self-harm (n = 1029) was conducted. Data were collected May - June 2020. Main outcomes were self-reported COVID-19-related fear (based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale [FCV-19S]), lifetime history of COVID-19, and lifetime history of self-harm. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Chi-square was used to compare characteristics of our sample with available national data. RESULTS: Overall, 75.1, 40.2 and 74.3% of the total sample reported lifetime suicidal ideation, suicidal attempts and non-suicidal self-harm respectively. When adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, social grade, and exposure to death and suicide, binary logistic regression showed higher levels of perceived symptomatic (or physiological) reactions to COVID-19 were associated with suicidal ideation (OR = 1.22, 95%CI 1.07, 1.39) and suicidal attempts (OR = 3.91, 95%CI 1.18, 12.96) in the past week. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest an urgent need to consider the impact of COVID-19 on people with a lifetime history of self-harm when designing interventions to help support people in reducing suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts. Experiencing symptomatic reactions of fear in particular is associated with self-harm. Helping to support people to develop coping plans in response to threat-related fear is likely to help people at risk of repeat self-harm during public health emergencies.

Identifying targets for interventions to support public adherence to government instructions to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 lacks sentience and can only be spread through human behaviour. Government instructions to the general public include: (a) limiting time spent outside the home, (b) staying more than 1 m away from people outside the household at all times, and (c) maintaining hand hygiene. Current evidence suggests high rates of adherence to such instructions, but interventions to sustain adherence to government instructions in the long term can only be developed if we know why people do or do not adhere to them. The aims were to assess levels of public adherence to government instructions to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but more importantly to gauge why people were or were not adhering to instructions. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 2252 adults who were representative of the UK population. Data were analysed descriptively, and using one-sample t-tests, within-participants ANOVA and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The sample reported mostly adhering to UK government instructions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with 5% or fewer people reporting active resistance to instructions. People generally reported high levels of capability, opportunity and motivation to follow the instructions, but perceived relatively few physical and social opportunities. Multiple linear regression analyses showed that better adherence was associated with older age, being a woman, having a white ethnic background, and with perceiving greater levels of capabilities, opportunities and motivations. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeted at people with black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, men and younger people that focus on increasing capabilities, providing greater opportunities and boosting motivations are needed to support continued adherence to government instructions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Further research is required to track changes in people's capabilities, opportunities, motivations and behaviours in response to the ongoing emergency, any changes in government instructions, and to adapt the present procedures to other emergency situations.

What challenges do UK adults face when adhering to COVID-19-related instructions? Cross-sectional survey in a representative sample.

Adherence to government COVID-19-related instructions is reported to be high, but the psychosocial impacts of measures such as self-isolation and physical distancing could undermine long-term adherence to containment measures. The first step in designing interventions to mitigate the impacts of adhering to COVID-19-related instructions is to identify what are the most prevalent challenges and what characterises the people facing them. A cross-sectional survey was administered to a representative sample of the UK population (N = 2252), of whom n = 2139 (94.9%) reported adhering to the UK government's COVID-19-related instructions, and were included in the final analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Of the people who reported adhering to UK government's COVID-19-related instructions, 80.3% reported experiencing challenges. Adults aged 55 years or over (OR = 1.939, 95%CI 1.331-2.825) and men (OR = 0.489, 95%CI 0.393-0.608) were least likely to report challenges. Adjusting to changes in daily routine (reported by 48.7% of the sample), mental health (reported by 41.4% of the sample) and physical health (reported by 31.5% of the sample) were the most prevalent challenges. For the first time, the present study quantifies the extent to which people experienced challenges when adhering to government COVID-19-related instructions. Few people reported experiencing no challenges when adhering to COVID-19-related instructions. Interventions to address the effects of changes in daily routine, mental health challenges, and physical health challenges should be prioritised, with a focus on key subgroups including women, younger adults, and people without care commitments.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Public Responses to Health Messages Encouraging Vaccination against Infectious Diseases in a Pandemic or Epidemic.

Public health teams need to understand how the public responds to vaccination messages in a pandemic or epidemic to inform successful campaigns encouraging the uptake of new vaccines as they become available. A rapid systematic review was performed by searching PsycINFO, MEDLINE, healthevidence.org, OSF Preprints and PsyArXiv Preprints in May 2020 for studies including at least one health message promoting vaccine uptake of airborne-, droplet- and fomite-spread viruses. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) or the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and for patient and public involvement (PPI) in the research. Thirty-five articles were included. Most reported messages for seasonal influenza (n = 11; 31%) or H1N1 (n = 11; 31%). Evidence from moderate to high quality studies for improving vaccine uptake included providing information about virus risks and vaccination safety, as well as addressing vaccine misunderstandings, offering vaccination reminders, including vaccination clinic details, and delivering mixed media campaigns across hospitals or communities. Behavioural influences (beliefs and intentions) were improved when: shorter, risk-reducing or relative risk framing messages were used; the benefits of vaccination to society were emphasised; and beliefs about capability and concerns among target populations (e.g., vaccine safety) were addressed. Clear, credible, messages in a language target groups can understand were associated with higher acceptability. Two studies (6%) described PPI in the research process. Future campaigns should consider the beliefs and information needs of target populations in their design, including ensuring that vaccine eligibility and availability is clear, and messages are accessible. More high quality research is needed to demonstrate the effects of messaging interventions on actual vaccine uptake.