Public attitudes towards the use of novel technologies in their future healthcare: a UK survey.

BACKGROUND: Innovation in healthcare technologies can result in more convenient and effective treatment that is less costly, but a persistent challenge to widespread adoption in health and social care is end user acceptability. The purpose of this study was to capture UK public opinions and attitudes to novel healthcare technologies (NHTs), and to better understand the factors that contribute to acceptance and future use. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to the UK public between April and May 2020. Respondents received brief information about four novel healthcare technologies (NHTs) in development: a laser-based tool for early diagnosis of osteoarthritis, a virtual reality tool to support diabetes self-management, a non-invasive continuous glucose monitor using microwave signals, a mobile app for patient reported monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis. They were queried on their general familiarity and attitudes to technology, and their willingness to accept each NHT in their future care. Responses were analysed using summary statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: Knowledge about NHTs was diverse, with respondents being more aware about the health applications of mobile apps (66%), followed by laser-based technology (63.8%), microwave signalling (28%), and virtual reality (18.3%). Increasing age and the presence of a self-reported medical condition favoured acceptability for some NHTs, whereas self-reported understanding of how the NHT works resulted in elevated acceptance scores across all NHTs presented. Common contributors to hesitancy were safety and risks from use. Respondents wanted more information and evidence to help inform their decisions, ideally provided verbally by a general practitioner or health professional. Other concerns, such as privacy, were NHT-specific but equally important in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Early insight into the knowledge and preconceptions of the public about NHTs in development can assist their design and prospectively mitigate obstacles to acceptance and adoption.

Exploring the impact of shielding advice on the wellbeing of individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The national shielding programme was introduced by UK Government at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) offered advice and support to stay at home and avoid all non-essential contact. This study aimed to explore the impact and responses of "shielding" on the health and wellbeing of CEV individuals in Southwest England during the first COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: A two-stage mixed methods study, including a structured survey (7 August-23 October 2020) and semi-structured telephone interviews (26 August-30 September 2020) with a sample of individuals who had been identified as CEV and advised to "shield" by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 203 people (57% female, 54% > 69 years, 94% White British, 64% retired) in Southwest England identified as CEV by BNSSG CCG. Thirteen survey respondents participated in follow-up interviews (53% female, 40% > 69 years, 100% White British, 61% retired). 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 on the PHQ-9 questionnaire indicating possible depression and 15% scored ≥ 10 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.

Exploration of attitudes regarding uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccine hesitant adults in the UK: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to explore barriers and facilitators to uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to explore views and reactions to efforts to improve vaccine uptake among vaccine hesitant individuals. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people between the age of 18-29 years who had not had a COVID-19 vaccine, and those between 30 and 49 years who had not had a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: A total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose, and 35 had not been vaccinated. Participants described a willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe and to avoid restrictions. Barriers to uptake included: (1) perceived lack of need for COVID-19 vaccinations, (2) concerns about the efficacy of vaccinations, (3) concerns about safety, and (4) access issues. Uptake appeared to be influenced by age and health status, trust in government, and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may be viewed as coercive. CONCLUSION: Participants were hesitant, rather than opposed, and had questions about their need for, and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Young people did not consider themselves to be at risk of becoming ill from COVID-19, did not think the vaccination was effective in preventing transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted regarding possible long-term side-effects. Concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in government, and misunderstanding of science. To promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that explains the benefits of vaccination and addresses safety concerns more effectively. To overcome inertia in people with low levels of motivation to be vaccinated, appointments must be easily accessible.

Novel multi-virus rapid respiratory microbiological point-of-care testing in primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rapid multi-viral respiratory microbiological point-of-care tests (POCTs) have not been evaluated in UK primary care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a multi-viral microbiological POCT for suspected respiratory tract infections (RTIs). METHODS: In this observational, mixed-methods feasibility study practices were provided with a POCT machine for any patient aged ≥3 months with suspected RTI. Dual throat/nose swabs tested for 17 respiratory viruses and three atypical bacteria, 65 minutes per sample. RESULTS: Twenty clinicians recruited 93 patients (estimated 1:3 of all RTI cases). Patient's median age was 29, 57% female, and 44% with co-morbidities. Pre-test diagnoses: upper RTI (48%); lower RTI (30%); viral/influenza-like illness (18%); other (4%). Median set-up time was 2.72 minutes, with 72% swabs processed <4 hours, 90% <24 hours. Tests detected ≥1 virus in 58%, no pathogen 37% and atypical bacteria 2% (3% inconclusive). Antibiotics were prescribed pre-test to 35% of patients with no pathogen detected and 25% with a virus. Post-test diagnoses changed in 20%, and diagnostic certainty increased (P = 0.02), more so when the test was positive rather than negative (P < 0.001). Clinicians predicted decreased antibiotic benefit post-test (P = 0.02). Interviews revealed the POCT has clear potential, was easy to use and well-liked, but limited by time-to-result and the absence of testing for typical respiratory bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: This POCT was acceptable and appeared to influence clinical reasoning. Clinicians wanted faster time-to-results and more information about bacteria. Randomized trials are needed to understand the safety, efficacy and patient perceptions of these POCTs.

The UK government has called for the introduction of rapid diagnostics to curb overuse of antibiotics for common infections. Multi-viral respiratory 'point-of-care' tests (POCTs) are available but have not been used in UK primary care before. These POCTs use samples from the nose or back of the throat and give results quickly, to see if viruses or bacteria are there. In this study, four GP practices were given POCT machines for 6 weeks to see how they were used. Of the 93 patient samples tested, 3% were inconclusive, 37% tested negative, 58% had at least one virus and only 2% had a bacterial infection. Clinicians were more certain of patient diagnoses after testing especially when a virus or bacterium was detected and they were also less likely to predict the patient would benefit from antibiotics. Clinical diagnoses changed in 20% of patients after testing but less than 10% were contacted to change their treatment plan. During interviews, clinicians revealed they liked the test finding it easy-to-use but wanted faster time-to-results and testing for more bacteria. Clinical trials are needed to see if these POCTs can safely and cost-effectively reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Understanding patterns of adherence to COVID-19 mitigation measures: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence highlights the disproportionate impact of measures that have been introduced to reduce the spread of coronavirus on individuals from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, and among those on a low income. An understanding of barriers to adherence in these populations is needed. In this qualitative study, we examined the patterns of adherence to mitigation measures and reasons underpinning these behaviors. METHODS: 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 during the pandemic and to explore the reasons underpinning this behavior. RESULTS: We identified three categories of adherence to lockdown measures: (i) caution-motivated super-adherence (ii) risk-adapted partial-adherence and (iii) 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. More evidence is required on population level risks of people adopting risk-adapted partial-adherence.