Non-pharmaceutical interventions and risk of COVID-19 infection: survey of U.K. public from November 2020 - May 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as handwashing, social distancing and face mask wearing, have been widely promoted to reduce the spread of COVID-19. This study aimed to explore the relationship between self-reported use of NPIs and COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We conducted an online questionnaire study recruiting members of the UK public from November 2020 to May 2021. The association between self-reported COVID-19 illness and reported use of NPIs was explored using logistic regression and controlling for participant characteristics, month of questionnaire completion, and vaccine status. Participants who had been exposed to COVID-19 in their household in the previous 2 weeks were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred fifty-eight participants were included and 2,814 (10.1%) reported having a COVID-19 infection. The odds of COVID-19 infection were reduced with use of a face covering in unadjusted (OR 0.17 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.20) and adjusted (aOR 0.19, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.23) analyses. Social distancing (OR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.31; aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43) and handwashing when arriving home (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73; aOR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.83) also reduced the odds of COVID-19. Being in crowded places of 10-100 people (OR 1.89, 95% CI: 1.70 to 2.11; aOR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.42 to 1.85) and > 100 people (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.11 to 2.58; aOR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.53 to 1.97) were both associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infection. Handwashing before eating, avoiding touching the face, and cleaning things with virus on were all associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infections. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational study found evidence for strong protective effects for individuals from use of face coverings, social distancing (including avoiding crowded places) and handwashing on arriving home on developing COVID-19 infection. We also found evidence for an increased risk associated with other behaviours, possibly from recall bias.

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.

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.

The acceptability of testing contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases using serial, self-administered lateral flow devices as an alternative to self-isolation.

Introduction. Evidence suggests that although people modify their behaviours, full adherence to self-isolation guidance in England may be suboptimal, which may have a detrimental impact on COVID-19 transmission rates.Hypothesis. Testing asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 could reduce onward transmission by improving case ascertainment and lessen the impact of self-isolation on un-infected individuals.Aim. This study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a 'test to enable approach' as part of England's tracing strategy.Methodology. Contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were offered serial testing as an alternative to self-isolation using daily self-performed lateral flow device (LFD) tests for the first 7 days post-exposure. Asymptomatic participants with a negative LFD result were given 24 h of freedom from self-isolation between each test. A self-collected confirmatory PCR test was performed on testing positive or at the end of the LFD testing period.Results. Of 1760 contacts, 882 consented to daily testing, of whom 812 individuals were within 48 h of exposure and were sent LFD testing packs. Of those who declined to participate, 39.1% stated they had already accessed PCR testing. Of the 812 who were sent LFD packs, 570 (70.2%) reported one or more LFD results; 102 (17.9%) tested positive. Concordance between reported LFD result and a supplied LFD image was 97.1%. In total, 82.8% of PCR-positive samples and 99.6% of PCR-negative samples were correctly detected by LFD. The proportion of secondary cases from contacts of those who participated in the study and tested positive (6.3%; 95% CI: 3.4-11.1%) was comparable to a comparator group who self-isolated (7.6%; 95% CI: 7.3-7.8%).Conclusion. This study shows a high acceptability, compliance and positivity rates when using self-administered LFDs among contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Offering routine testing as a structured part of the contact tracing process is likely to be an effective method of case ascertainment.

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.

Using nasal sprays to prevent respiratory tract infections: a qualitative study of online consumer reviews and primary care patient interviews.

OBJECTIVES: Nasal sprays could be a promising approach to preventing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). This study explored lay people's perceptions and experiences of using nasal sprays to prevent RTIs to identify barriers and facilitators to their adoption and continued use. DESIGN: Qualitative research. Study 1 thematically analysed online consumer reviews of an RTI prevention nasal spray. Study 2 interviewed patients about their reactions to and experiences of a digital intervention that promotes and supports nasal spray use for RTI prevention (reactively: at 'first signs' of infection and preventatively: following possible/probable exposure to infection). Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: Primary care, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 407 online customer reviews. 13 purposively recruited primary care patients who had experienced recurrent infections and/or had risk factors for severe infections. RESULTS: Both studies identified various factors that might influence nasal spray use including: high motivation to avoid RTIs, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; fatalistic views about RTIs; beliefs about alternative prevention methods; the importance of personal recommendation; perceived complexity and familiarity of nasal sprays; personal experiences of spray success or failure; tolerable and off-putting side effects; concerns about medicines; and the nose as unpleasant and unhygienic. CONCLUSIONS: People who suffer disruptive, frequent or severe RTIs or who are vulnerable to RTIs are interested in using a nasal spray for prevention. They also have doubts and concerns and may encounter problems. Some of these may be reduced or eliminated by providing nasal spray users with information and advice that addresses these concerns or helps people overcome difficulties.

The Rapid Adaptation and Optimisation of a Digital Behaviour-Change Intervention to Reduce the Spread of COVID-19 in Schools.

The rapid transmission of COVID-19 in school communities has been a major concern. To ensure that mitigation systems were in place and support was available, a digital intervention to encourage and facilitate infection-control behaviours was rapidly adapted and optimised for implementation as a whole-school intervention. Using the person-based approach, 'Germ Defence' was iteratively adapted, guided by relevant literature, co-production with Patient and Public Involvement representatives, and think-aloud interviews with forty-five school students, staff, and parents. Suggested infection-control behaviours deemed feasible and acceptable by the majority of participants included handwashing/hand-sanitising and wearing a face covering in certain contexts, such as crowded public spaces. Promoting a sense of collective responsibility was reported to increase motivation for the adoption of these behaviours. However, acceptability and willingness to implement recommended behaviours seemed to be influenced by participants' perceptions of risk. Barriers to the implementation of recommended behaviours in school and at home primarily related to childcare needs and physical space. We conclude that it was possible to rapidly adapt Germ Defence to provide an acceptable resource to help mitigate against infection transmission within and from school settings. Adapted content was considered acceptable, persuasive, and accessible.

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.

Patient perceptions of vulnerability to recurrent respiratory tract infections and prevention strategies: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are extremely common, usually self-limiting, but responsible for considerable work sickness absence, reduced quality of life, inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and healthcare costs. Patients who experience recurrent RTIs and those with certain comorbid conditions have higher personal impact and healthcare costs and may be more likely to suffer disease exacerbations, hospitalisation and death. We explored how these patients experience and perceive their RTIs to understand how best to engage them in prevention behaviours. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study. SETTING: Primary care, UK. METHODS: 23 participants who reported recurrent RTIs and/or had relevant comorbid health conditions were interviewed about their experiences of RTIs. Interviews took place as the COVID-19 pandemic began. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were developed: Understanding causes and vulnerability, Attempting to prevent RTIs, Uncertainty and ambivalence about prevention, along with an overarching theme; Changing experiences because of COVID-19. Participants' understandings of their susceptibility to RTIs were multifactorial and included both transmission via others and personal vulnerabilities. They engaged in various approaches to try to prevent infections or alter their progression yet perceived they had limited personal control. The COVID-19 pandemic had improved their understanding of transmission, heightened their concern and motivation to avoid RTIs and extended their repertoire of protective behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who experience frequent or severe RTIs are likely to welcome and benefit from advice and support regarding RTI prevention. To engage people effectively, those developing interventions or delivering health services must consider their beliefs and concerns about susceptibility and prevention.

Feasibility and acceptability of daily testing at school as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Daily testing using a rapid Lateral Flow Device (LFD) has been suggested as an alternative to self-isolation. A randomised trial comparing daily contact testing (DCT) in schools with self-isolation found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission within school was comparable and low in both groups. However, if this approach is to be adopted widely, it is critical that we understand the perspective of those who will be delivering and receiving DCT. The aim of this qualitative process study embedded in the randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to improve understanding of a range of behavioural factors that could influence implementation. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 63 participants, including staff, students, and parents of students who had been identified as being in close contact with someone with COVID-19. The topic guide explored perceptions of daily testing, understanding of positive and negative test results, and adherence to guidance. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Results were organised under three main headings: (1) factors influencing daily testing (2) interpretation of test results (3) behaviour during testing period. Participants recognized that daily testing may allow students to remain in school, which was viewed as necessary for both education and social needs. Whilst some felt safer as a result of daily testing, others raised concerns about safety. Participants did not always understand how to interpret and respond to test results, and although participants reported high levels of adherence to the guidance, improved communications were desired. CONCLUSION: Daily testing may be a feasible and acceptable alternative to self-isolation among close contacts of people who test positive. However, improved communications are needed to ensure that all students and parents have a good understanding of the rationale for testing, what test results mean, how test results should be acted on, and how likely students are to test positive following close contact. Support is needed for students and parents of students who have to self-isolate and for those who have concerns about the safety of daily testing.

Cluster randomised controlled trial to assess a tailored intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing in rural China: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Up to 80% of patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) attending healthcare facilities in rural areas of China are prescribed antibiotics, many of which are unnecessary. Since 2009, China has implemented several policies to try to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use; however, antibiotic prescribing remains high in rural health facilities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised controlled trial will be carried out to estimate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a complex intervention in reducing antibiotic prescribing at township health centres in Anhui Province, China. 40 Township health centres will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to the intervention or usual care arms. In the intervention group, practitioners will receive an intervention comprising: (1) training to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing for RTI, (2) a computer-based treatment decision support system, (3) virtual peer support, (4) a leaflet for patients and (5) a letter of commitment to optimise antibiotic use to display in their clinic. The primary outcome is the percentage of antibiotics (intravenous and oral) prescribed for RTI patients. Secondary outcomes include patient symptom severity and duration, recovery status, satisfaction, antibiotic consumption. A full economic evaluation will be conducted within the trial period. Costs and savings for both clinics and patients will be considered and quality of life will be measured by EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L). A qualitative process evaluation will explore practitioner and patient views and experiences of trial processes, intervention fidelity and acceptability, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of Anhui Medical University (Ref: 20180259); the study has undergone due diligence checks and is registered at the University of Bristol (Ref: 2020-3137). Research findings will be disseminated to stakeholders through conferences and peer-reviewed journals in China, the UK and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30652037.

Infection Control Behavior at Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study of a Web-Based Behavioral Intervention (Germ Defence).

BACKGROUND: To control the COVID-19 pandemic, people should adopt protective behaviors at home (self-isolation, social distancing, putting shopping and packages aside, wearing face coverings, cleaning and disinfecting, and handwashing). There is currently limited support to help individuals conduct these behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report current household infection control behaviors in the United Kingdom and examine how they might be improved. METHODS: This was a pragmatic cross-sectional observational study of anonymous participant data from Germ Defence between May 6-24, 2020. Germ Defence is an open-access fully automated website providing behavioral advice for infection control within households. A total of 28,285 users sought advice from four website pathways based on household status (advice to protect themselves generally, to protect others if the user was showing symptoms, to protect themselves if household members were showing symptoms, and to protect a household member who is at high risk). Users reported current infection control behaviors within the home and intentions to change these behaviors. RESULTS: Current behaviors varied across all infection control measures but were between sometimes (face covering: mean 1.61, SD 1.19; social distancing: mean 2.40, SD 1.22; isolating: mean 2.78, SD 1.29; putting packages and shopping aside: mean 2.75, SD 1.55) and quite often (cleaning and disinfecting: mean 3.17, SD 1.18), except for handwashing (very often: mean 4.00, SD 1.03). Behaviors were similar regardless of the website pathway used. After using Germ Defence, users recorded intentions to improve infection control behavior across all website pathways and for all behaviors (overall average infection control score mean difference 0.30, 95% CI 0.29-0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported infection control behaviors other than handwashing are lower than is optimal for infection prevention, although handwashing is much higher. Advice using behavior change techniques in Germ Defence led to intentions to improve these behaviors. Promoting Germ Defence within national and local public health and primary care guidance could reduce COVID-19 transmission.

Infection control in the home: a qualitative study exploring perceptions and experiences of adhering to protective behaviours in the home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to explore people's experiences and perceptions of implementing infection control behaviours in the home during the COVID-19 pandemic, guided by an online behavioural intervention. DESIGN: Inductive qualitative study. SETTING: UK public during the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen people took part in telephone interviews, and 124 completed a qualitative open-text survey. All were recruited from the public. Most survey participants were aged over 60 years, while interview participants were more distributed in age. Most reported being at increased risk from COVID-19, and were white British. INTERVENTION: Online behavioural intervention to support infection control behaviours in the home during the COVID-19 pandemic. DATA COLLECTION: Telephone think-aloud interviews and qualitative survey data. DATA ANALYSIS: The think-aloud interview data and qualitative survey data were analysed independently using inductive thematic analysis. The findings were subsequently triangulated. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the telephone interviews generated seven themes: perceived risk; belief in the effectiveness of protective behaviours; acceptability of distancing and isolation; having capacity to perform the behaviours; habit forming reduces effort; having the confidence to perform the behaviours; and social norms affect motivation to engage in the behaviours. The themes identified from the survey data mapped well onto the interview analysis. Isolating and social distancing at home were less acceptable than cleaning and handwashing, influenced by the need for intimacy with household members. This was especially true in the absence of symptoms and when perceived risk was low. People felt more empowered when they understood that even small changes, such as spending some time apart, were worthwhile to reduce exposure and lessen viral load. CONCLUSIONS: The current study provided valuable insight into the acceptability and feasibility of protective behaviours, and how public health guidance could be incorporated into a behaviour change intervention for the public during a pandemic.

A Web-Based Intervention (Germ Defence) to Increase Handwashing During a Pandemic: Process Evaluations of a Randomized Controlled Trial and Public Dissemination.

BACKGROUND: Washing hands helps prevent transmission of seasonal and pandemic respiratory viruses. In a randomized controlled trial (RCT) during the swine flu outbreak, participants with access to a fully automated, digital intervention promoting handwashing reported washing their hands more often and experienced fewer respiratory tract infections than those without access to the intervention. Based on these findings, the intervention was adapted, renamed as "Germ Defence," and a study was designed to assess the preliminary dissemination of the intervention to the general public to help prevent the spread of seasonal colds and flu. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the process evaluations of the RCT and Germ Defence dissemination to examine (1) how web-based research enrollment procedures affected those who used the intervention, (2) intervention usage in the 2 contexts, and (3) whether increased intentions to wash hands are replicated once disseminated. METHODS: The RCT ran between 2010 and 2012 recruiting participants offline from general practices, with restricted access to the intervention (N=9155). Germ Defence was disseminated as an open access website for use by the general public from 2016 to 2019 (N=624). The process evaluation plan was developed using Medical Research Council guidance and the framework for Analyzing and Measuring Usage and Engagement Data. Both interventions contained a goal-setting section where users self-reported current and intended handwashing behavior across 7 situations. RESULTS: During web-based enrolment, 54.3% (17,511/32,250) of the RCT participants dropped out of the study compared to 36.5% (358/982) of Germ Defence users. Having reached the start of the intervention, 93.8% (8586/9155) of RCT users completed the core section, whereas 65.1% (406/624) of Germ Defence users reached the same point. Users across both studies selected to increase their handwashing in 5 out of 7 situations, including before eating snacks (RCT mean difference 1.040, 95% CI 1.016-1.063; Germ Defence mean difference 0.949, 95% CI 0.766-1.132) and after blowing their nose, sneezing, or coughing (RCT mean difference 0.995, 95% CI 0.972-1.019; Germ Defence mean difference 0.842, 95% CI 0.675-1.008). CONCLUSIONS: By comparing the preliminary dissemination of Germ Defence to the RCT, we were able to examine the potential effects of the research procedures on uptake and attrition such as the sizeable dropout during the RCT enrolment procedure that may have led to a more motivated sample. The Germ Defence study highlighted the points of attrition within the intervention. Despite sample bias in the trial context, the intervention replicated increases in intentions to handwash when used "in the wild." This preliminary dissemination study informed the adaptation of the intervention for the COVID-19 health emergency, and it has now been disseminated globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN75058295; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN75058295.

Daily testing for contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and attendance and SARS-CoV-2 transmission in English secondary schools and colleges: an open-label, cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: School-based COVID-19 contacts in England have been asked to self-isolate at home, missing key educational opportunities. We trialled daily testing of contacts as an alternative to assess whether this resulted in similar control of transmission, while allowing more school attendance. METHODS: We did an open-label, cluster-randomised, controlled trial in secondary schools and further education colleges in England. Schools were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-isolation of school-based COVID-19 contacts for 10 days (control) or to voluntary daily lateral flow device (LFD) testing for 7 days with LFD-negative contacts remaining at school (intervention). Randomisation was stratified according to school type and size, presence of a sixth form, presence of residential students, and proportion of students eligible for free school meals. Group assignment was not masked during procedures or analysis. Coprimary outcomes in all students and staff were COVID-19-related school absence and symptomatic PCR-confirmed COVID-19, adjusted for community case rates, to estimate within-school transmission (non-inferiority margin <50% relative increase). Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis using quasi-Poisson regression, also estimating complier average causal effects (CACE). This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN18100261. FINDINGS: Between March 18 and May 4, 2021, 204 schools were taken through the consent process, during which three decided not to participate further. 201 schools were randomly assigned (control group n=99, intervention group n=102) in the 10-week study (April 19-May 10, 2021), which continued until the pre-appointed stop date (June 27, 2021). 76 control group schools and 86 intervention group schools actively participated; additional national data allowed most non-participating schools to be included in analysis of coprimary outcomes. 2432 (42·4%) of 5763 intervention group contacts participated in daily contact testing. There were 657 symptomatic PCR-confirmed infections during 7 782 537 days-at-risk (59·1 per 100 000 per week) in the control group and 740 during 8 379 749 days-at-risk (61·8 per 100 000 per week) in the intervention group (intention-to-treat adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0·96 [95% CI 0·75-1·22]; p=0·72; CACE aIRR 0·86 [0·55-1·34]). Among students and staff, there were 59 422 (1·62%) COVID-19-related absences during 3 659 017 person-school-days in the control group and 51 541 (1·34%) during 3 845 208 person-school-days in the intervention group (intention-to-treat aIRR 0·80 [95% CI 0·54-1·19]; p=0·27; CACE aIRR 0·61 [0·30-1·23]). INTERPRETATION: Daily contact testing of school-based contacts was non-inferior to self-isolation for control of COVID-19 transmission, with similar rates of symptomatic infections among students and staff with both approaches. Infection rates in school-based contacts were low, with very few school contacts testing positive. Daily contact testing should be considered for implementation as a safe alternative to home isolation following school-based exposures. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Preventing within household transmission of Covid-19: is the provision of accommodation to support self-isolation feasible and acceptable?

BACKGROUND: Within-household transmission of Covid-19 is responsible for a significant number of infections. Efforts to protect at risk communities are needed. This study explored the acceptability of offering accommodation to support self-isolation among at risk populations, to prevent transmission of Covid-19 within vulnerable households. METHODS: Mixed methods design structured in two phases. Phase 1: Survey of 545 individuals who had provided consent to be contacted about ongoing research projects into infection control. Phase 2: Semi-structured interviews with 19 participants from ethnic minority and low income communities. RESULTS: Many survey and interview participants viewed the provision of accommodation as important and necessary in certain contexts. Of the 110 survey respondents, 85 (77%) said that they were not able to isolate at home. Among this group, 24 (28%) said they would accept accommodation and 23 (27%) said that they would probably accept. Of those unable to isolate at home, and at high risk if they caught the virus (N = 36) or living with someone at high risk (N 18), 19 (35%) said that they would accept, and 12 (22%) said they would probably accept accommodation. Factors influencing uptake of accommodation included perceived 1) household vulnerability 2) virus exposure and 3) lack of isolation at home options. Barriers to accepting the accommodation offer included 1) able to isolate at home 2) wanting to be with family 3) caring responsibilities 4) mental wellbeing concerns 5) concerns about moving when ill and 6) infection control concerns. Participants raised issues that should be addressed before accommodation is offered, including questions regarding who should use temporary accommodation and when, and how infection control in temporary accommodation would be managed. CONCLUSION: The provision of accommodation to prevent within household transmission of Covid-19 is viewed as acceptable, feasible and necessary by some people who are concerned about infection transmission in the home and are unable to self-isolate or socially distance at home. Different households will have different requirements, e.g., those with caring responsibilities, and to overcome these challenges additional support may be needed for the provision of accommodation to be feasible to those who could benefit most.

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 and adherence trade-offs for SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing.

Contact tracing is an important tool for allowing countries to ease lockdown policies introduced to combat SARS-CoV-2. For contact tracing to be effective, those with symptoms must self-report themselves while their contacts must self-isolate when asked. However, policies such as legal enforcement of self-isolation can create trade-offs by dissuading individuals from self-reporting. We use an existing branching process model to examine which aspects of contact tracing adherence should be prioritized. We consider an inverse relationship between self-isolation adherence and self-reporting engagement, assuming that increasingly strict self-isolation policies will result in fewer individuals self-reporting to the programme. We find that policies which increase the average duration of self-isolation, or that increase the probability that people self-isolate at all, at the expense of reduced self-reporting rate, will not decrease the risk of a large outbreak and may increase the risk, depending on the strength of the trade-off. These results suggest that policies to increase self-isolation adherence should be implemented carefully. Policies that increase self-isolation adherence at the cost of self-reporting rates should be avoided. This article is part of the theme issue 'Modelling that shaped the early COVID-19 pandemic response in the UK'.

Experiences of the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic from the perspectives of young people: Rapid qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Young people are considered at lower risk from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, measures to limit the population health impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic have caused significant disruptions to their lives. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of young people predominantly living in the south-west of England during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Rapid qualitative study. METHODS: Following advertisement on social media, a purposive sample of young people by age and gender who had expressed an interest were invited to participate. In June 2020, 21 young people (12-17 years) took part in 18 semi-structured interviews, either through a digital platform or by telephone. Interviews were recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken, assisted by NVvivo Software. RESULTS: Young people felt the greatest impacts of the pandemic have been disruption to how they learned because of school closures and limited face-to-face interaction with their social networks. There was variation in terms of how satisfied young people were with self-directed learning at home, and some anxieties in relation to its effectiveness outside the school environment. Most young people reported maintaining social relationships remotely, but some young people appeared to have little social interaction outside their household. High levels of adherence to social distancing and handwashing were reported, which could lead to a sense of injustice resulting from visibility of other people breaching social distancing guidance. Young people were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 if a vaccine became available, with the greatest motivator being to protect others above themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Young people have experienced significant disruption to their education and social networks during the COVID-19 pandemic. During lockdown, high levels of compliance to government public health guidelines to reduce transmission of COVID-19 were reported by young people. If an effective vaccine is developed, a schools-based vaccination programme could be an efficient method to interrupt transmission to more at-risk populations and prevent further disruptions to young people's education.

Effectiveness of digital interventions to improve household and community infection prevention and control behaviours and to reduce incidence of respiratory and/or gastro-intestinal infections: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions have potential to efficiently support improved hygiene practices to reduce transmission of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for digital interventions to improve hygiene practices within the community. METHODS: We reviewed articles published between 01 January 2000 and 26 May 2019 that presented a controlled trial of a digital intervention to improve hygiene behaviours in the community. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and grey literature. Trials in hospitals were excluded, as were trials aiming at prevention of sexually transmitted infections; only target diseases with transmission mechanisms similar to COVID-19 (e.g. respiratory and gastrointestinal infections) were included. Trials had to evaluate a uniquely digital component of an intervention. Study designs were limited to randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after trials, and interrupted time series analyses. Outcomes could be either incidence of infections or change in hygiene behaviours. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: We found seven studies that met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported successfully improving self-reported hygiene behaviour or health outcomes, but only one of these six trials, Germ Defence, confirmed improvements using objective measures (reduced consultations and antibiotic prescriptions). Settings included kindergartens, workplaces, and service station restrooms. Modes of delivery were diverse: WeChat, website, text messages, audio messages to mobiles, electronic billboards, and electronic personal care records. Four interventions targeted parents of young children with educational materials. Two targeted the general population; these also used behaviour change techniques or theory to inform the intervention. Only one trial had low risk of bias, Germ Defence; the most common concerns were lack of information about the randomisation, possible bias in reporting of behavioural outcomes, and lack of an analysis plan and possible selective reporting of results. CONCLUSION: There was only one trial that was judged to be at low risk of bias, Germ Defence, which reduced incidence and severity of illness, as confirmed by objective measures. Further evaluation is required to determine the effectiveness of the other interventions reviewed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020189919 .