The impact of "freedom day" on COVID-19 health protective behaviour in England: An observational study of hand hygiene, face covering use and physical distancing in public spaces pre and post the relaxing of restrictions.

Objectives: To study the prevalence of COVID-19 health protective behaviours before and after rules eased in England on the 19th July 2021. Design: Observational study pre (12th-18th July) and post (26th July-1st August) 19th July, and a cross-sectional online survey (26th to 27th July). Setting: Observations occurred in supermarkets (n = 10), train stations (n = 10), bus stops (n = 10), a coach station (n = 1) and a London Underground station (n = 1). The survey recruited a nationally representative sample. Participants: All adults entering the observed locations during a one-hour period (n = 3819 pre- and n = 2948 post-19th July). In the online survey, 1472 respondents reported having been shopping for groceries/visited a pharmacy and 566 reported having used public transport or having been in a taxi/minicab in the last week. Main outcome measures: We observed whether people wore a face covering, maintained distance from others and cleaned their hands. We investigated self-reports of wearing a face covering while in shops or using public transport. Results: In most locations observed, the proportion of people wearing face coverings, cleaning the hands and maintaining physical distance declined post 19th July. Pre 19th July, 70.2% (95% CI 68.7 to 71.7%) of people were observed to be wearing a face covering versus 55.8% (54.2 to 57.9%) post 19th July. Equivalent rates for physical distancing were 40.9% (39.0 to 42.8%) versus 29.5% (27.4 to 31.7%), and for hand hygiene were 4.4% (3.8 to 5.1%) versus 3.9% (3.2 to 4.6%). Self-reports of "always" wearing face coverings were broadly similar to observed rates. Conclusions: Adherence to protective behaviours was sub-optimal and declined during the relaxation of restrictions, despite appeals to exercise caution. Self-reports of "always" wearing a face covering in specific locations appear valid.

Daily use of lateral flow devices by contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases to enable exemption from isolation compared with standard self-isolation to reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, during the study period (April to July, 2021), all contacts of people with COVID-19 were required to self-isolate for 10 days, which had adverse impacts on individuals and society. Avoiding the need to self-isolate for those who remain uninfected would be beneficial. We investigated whether daily use of lateral flow devices (LFDs) to test for SARS-CoV-2, with removal of self-isolation for 24 h if negative, could be a safe alternative to self-isolation as a means to minimise onward transmission of the virus. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial in adult contacts identified by COVID-19 contact tracing in England. Consenting participants were randomly assigned to self-isolation (single PCR test, 10-day isolation) or daily contact testing (DCT; seven LFD tests, two PCR tests, no isolation if negative on LFD); participants from a single household were assigned to the same group. Participants were prospectively followed up, with the effect of each intervention on onward transmission established from routinely collected NHS Test and Trace contact tracing data for participants who tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period and tertiary cases arising from their contacts (ie, secondary contacts). The primary outcome of the study was the attack rate, the percentage of secondary contacts (close contacts of SARS-CoV-2-positive study participants) who became COVID-19 cases (tertiary cases) in each group. Attack rates were derived from Bernoulli regression models using Huber-White (robust) sandwich estimator clustered standard errors. Attack rates were adjusted for household exposure, vaccination status, and ability to work from home. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9%. The primary analysis was a modified intention-to-treat analysis excluding those who actively withdrew from the study as data from these participants were no longer held. This study is registered with the Research Registry (number 6809). Data collection is complete; analysis is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 29 and July 28, 2021, 54 923 eligible individuals were enrolled in the study, with final group allocations (following withdrawals) of 26 123 (52·6%) participants in the DCT group and 23 500 (47·4%) in the self-isolation group. Overall, 4694 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR (secondary cases), 2364 (10·1%) in the self-isolation group and 2330 (8·9%) in the DCT group. Adjusted attack rates (among secondary contacts) were 7·5% in the self-isolation group and 6·3% in the DCT group (difference of -1·2% [95% CI -2·3 to -0·2]; significantly lower than the non-inferiority margin of 1·9%). INTERPRETATION: DCT with 24 h exemption from self-isolation for essential activities appears to be non-inferior to self-isolation. This study, which provided evidence for the UK Government's daily lateral flow testing policy for vaccinated contacts of COVID-19 cases, indicated that daily testing with LFDs could allow individuals to reduce the risk of onward transmission while minimising the adverse effects of self-isolation. Although contacts in England are no longer required to isolate, the findings will be relevant for future policy decisions around COVID-19 or other communicable infections. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

A systematic review of observational methods used to quantify personal protective behaviours among members of the public during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the concordance between observational and self-report measures in infectious disease health protection.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quantity and quality of studies using an observational measure of behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to narratively describe the association between self-report and observational data for behaviours relevant to controlling an infectious disease outbreak. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, Publons, Scopus and the UK Health Security Agency behavioural science LitRep database from inception to 17th September 2021 for relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies which collected observational data of at least one of three health protective behaviours (hand hygiene, face covering use and maintaining physical distance from others ('social distancing') during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies where observational data were compared to self-report data in relation to any infectious disease were also included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We evaluated the quality of studies using the NIH quality assessment scale for observational studies, extracted data on sample size, setting and adherence to health protective behaviours, and synthesized results narratively. RESULTS: Of 27,279 published papers on COVID-19 relevant health protective behaviours that included one or more terms relating to hand hygiene, face covering and social distancing, we identified 48 studies that included an objective observational measure. Of these, 35 assessed face covering use, 17 assessed hand hygiene behaviour and seven assessed physical distancing. The general quality of these studies was good. When expanding the search to all infectious diseases, we included 21 studies that compared observational versus self-report data. These almost exclusively studied hand hygiene. The difference in outcomes was striking, with self-report over-estimating observed adherence by up to a factor of five in some settings. In only four papers did self-report match observational data in any domains. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their importance in controlling the pandemic, we found remarkably few studies assessing protective behaviours by observation, rather than self-report, though these studies tended to be of reasonably good quality. Observed adherence tends to be substantially lower than estimates obtained via self-report. Accurate assessment of levels of personal protective behaviour, and evaluation of interventions to increase this, would benefit from the use of observational methods.

A systematic review of observational methods used to quantify personal protective behaviours among members of the public during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the concordance between observational and self-report measures in infectious disease health protection

To assess the quantity and quality of studies using an observational measure of behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to narratively describe the association between self-report and observational data for behaviours relevant to controlling an infectious disease outbreak. Systematic review and narrative synthesis of observational studies. We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, Publons, Scopus and the UK Health Security Agency behavioural science LitRep database from inception to 17th September 2021 for relevant studies. We included studies which collected observational data of at least one of three health protective behaviours (hand hygiene, face covering use and maintaining physical distance from others (‘social distancing’) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies where observational data were compared to self-report data in relation to any infectious disease were also included. We evaluated the quality of studies using the NIH quality assessment scale for observational studies, extracted data on sample size, setting and adherence to health protective behaviours, and synthesized results narratively. Of 27,279 published papers on COVID-19 relevant health protective behaviours that included one or more terms relating to hand hygiene, face covering and social distancing, we identified 48 studies that included an objective observational measure. Of these, 35 assessed face covering use, 17 assessed hand hygiene behaviour and seven assessed physical distancing. The general quality of these studies was good. When expanding the search to all infectious diseases, we included 21 studies that compared observational versus self-report data. These almost exclusively studied hand hygiene. The difference in outcomes was striking, with self-report over-estimating observed adherence by up to a factor of five in some settings. In only four papers did self-report match observational data in any domains. Despite their importance in controlling the pandemic, we found remarkably few studies assessing protective behaviours by observation, rather than self-report, though these studies tended to be of reasonably good quality. Observed adherence tends to be substantially lower than estimates obtained via self-report. Accurate assessment of levels of personal protective behaviour, and evaluation of interventions to increase this, would benefit from the use of observational methods.

A qualitative process analysis of daily contact testing as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed carrier of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: In July 2021, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to compare the effect on SARS-CoV-2 transmission of seven days of Daily Contact Testing (DCT) using Lateral Flow Test (LFT) and two Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests as an alternative to 10 days of standard self-isolation with one PCR, following close contact with a SARS-CoV-2 carrier. In this qualitative study, we used a nested process evaluation to aid interpretation of the trial and provide insight into factors influencing use of tests, understanding of test results, and how tests were used to inform behavioural decisions. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 60 participants (42 randomised to DCT and 18 randomised to self-isolation) who had been in close contact with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 carrier and had consented to take part in the trial. RESULTS: Data were organised into three overarching themes: (1) assessing the risks and benefits of DCT (2) use of testing during the study period and (3) future use of testing. Attitudes toward DCT as an alternative to self-isolation and behaviour during the testing period appeared to be informed by an assessment of the associated risks and benefits. Participants reported how important it was for them to avoid isolation, how necessary self-isolation was considered to be, and the ability of LFTs to detect infection. Behaviour during the testing period was modified to reduce risks and harms as much as possible. Testing was considered a potential compromise, reducing both risk of transmission and the negative impact of self-isolation, and was regarded as a way to return to normal. CONCLUSION: Participants in this study viewed DCT as a sensible, feasible, and welcome means of avoiding unnecessary self-isolation. Although negative LFTs provided reassurance, most people still restricted their activity as recommended. DCT was also highly valued by those in vulnerable households as a means of providing reassurance of the absence of infection and as an important means of detecting infection and prompting self-isolation when necessary.

Engagement With Daily Testing Instead of Self-Isolating in Contacts of Confirmed Cases of SARS-CoV-2: A Qualitative Analysis.

Introduction: In December 2020 and January 2021 Public Health England (PHE) with NHS Test and Trace conducted a study to explore the feasibility and acceptability of daily testing as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case. This qualitative paper aims to identify factors influencing uptake among those offered daily testing, and the subsequent impact on behaviour. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 52 participants who had taken part in the feasibility study. Participants were asked about their experiences of daily testing or self-isolating, their reasons for choosing to test or isolate, and their behaviour during the study period. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Results are presented under two main headings: (1) factors influencing acceptance of testing and (2) impact of test results. Participants appeared highly motivated to engage in behaviours that would protect others from the virus. Factors influencing the decision to accept testing included (1) needing to avoid self-isolation, (2) concerns about test sensitivity, and (3) perceived benefits of detecting infection. Participants who were taking tests reported: (1) positive consequences following confirmation of COVID status, (2) engaging in essential activities, (3) uncertainty, and (4) self-isolating whilst testing. Conclusions: This study has identified a range of factors that appear to influence the decision to engage in daily testing or to self-isolate following close contact with a positive case, many of which could be addressed by clear communications. Covid-19 infection rates and government restrictions influenced experiences, and so further research is needed to explore perceptions of daily testing and behaviour following close contact with a positive case among a wider range of individuals, in the context of lower rates of COVID-19, few government restrictions on general population behaviour and more widespread testing.

Engagement with daily testing instead of self-isolating in contacts of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: In December 2020, Public Health England with NHS Test and Trace initiated a pilot study in which close contacts of people with confirmed COVID-19 were given the option to carryout lateral flow device antigen tests at home, as an alternative to self-isolation for 10-14 days. In this study, we evaluated engagement with daily testing, and assessed levels of adherence to the rules relating to behaviour following positive or negative test results. METHODS: We conducted a service evaluation of the pilot study, examining survey responses from a subset of those who responded to an evaluation questionnaire. We used an online cross-sectional survey offered to adult contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases who consented to daily testing. We used a comparison group of contacts who were not offered testing and instead self-isolated. RESULTS: Acceptability of daily testing was lower among survey respondents who were not offered the option of testing and among people from ethnic minority groups. Overall, 52% of respondents reported being more likely to share details of people that they had been in contact with following a positive test result, if they knew that their contacts would be offered the option of daily testing. Only 2% reported that they would be less likely to provide details of their contacts. On the days that they were trying to self-isolate, 19% of participants reported that they left the house, with no significant group differences. Following a negative test, 13% of respondents reported that they increased their contacts, but most (58%) reported having fewer risky contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that daily testing is potentially acceptable, may facilitate sharing contact details of close contacts among those who test positive for COVID-19, and promote adherence to self-isolation. A better understanding is needed of how to make this option more acceptable for all households. The impact of receiving a negative test on behaviour remains a risk that needs to be monitored and mitigated by appropriate messaging. Future research should examine attitudes and behaviour in a context where infection levels are lower, testing is more familiar, and restrictions on activity have been reduced.