Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 28
Filter
1.
J Assoc Med Microbiol Infect Dis Can ; 7(3): 242-246, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2054881

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recent observational studies suggest that vaccines may have little effect in preventing infection with the Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the observed effects may be confounded by patient factors, preventive behaviours, or differences in testing behaviour. To assess potential confounding, we examined differences in testing behaviour between unvaccinated and vaccinated populations. METHODS: We recruited 1,526 Australian adults for an online randomized study about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing in late 2021, collecting self-reported vaccination status and three measures of COVID-19 testing behaviour: testing in past month or ever and test intention if they woke with a sore throat. We examined the association between testing intentions and vaccination status in the trial's baseline data. RESULTS: Of the 1,526 participants (mean age 31 y), 22% had a COVID-19 test in the past month and 61% ever; 17% were unvaccinated, 11% were partially vaccinated (one dose), and 71% were fully vaccinated (two or more doses). Fully vaccinated participants were twice as likely as those who were unvaccinated (relative risk [RR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.8 to 2.8, p < 0.001) to report positive COVID testing intentions. Partially vaccinated participants had less positive intentions than fully vaccinated participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89, p < 0.001) but higher intentions than unvaccinated participants (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.6, p = 0.002). DISCUSSION: Vaccination predicted greater COVID-19 testing intentions and would substantially bias observed vaccine effectiveness. To account for differential testing behaviours, test-negative designs are currently the preferred option, but their assumptions need more thorough examination.


HISTORIQUE: Selon de récentes études observationnelles, les vaccins peuvent avoir peu d'effet sur la prévention de l'infection par le variant Omicron du coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère. Cependant, les effets observés peuvent être biaisés par des facteurs liés aux patients, des comportements préventifs ou des différences de comportements liés aux tests. Pour évaluer les facteurs confusionnels potentiels, les auteurs ont examiné les différences de comportements liés aux tests entre les populations non vaccinées et vaccinées. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les auteurs ont recruté 1 526 adultes australiens en vue d'une étude randomisée en ligne sur les tests de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) à la fin de 2021, afin de colliger l'état vaccinal autodéclaré et trois mesures sur les comportements liés aux tests de la COVID-19 : test au cours du mois précédent ou jamais auparavant et intention de se soumettre à un test en cas de mal de gorge. Ils ont examiné l'association entre les intentions de se soumettre à un test et l'état vaccinal dans les données de référence de l'étude. RÉSULTATS: Sur les 1 526 participants (d'un âge moyen de 31 ans), 22 % avaient subi un test de COVID-19 au cours du mois précédent et 61 % n'en avaient jamais subi; 17 % n'étaient pas vaccinés, 11 % l'étaient partiellement (une dose) et 71 % l'étaient pleinement (au moins deux doses). Les participants pleinement vaccinés étaient deux fois plus susceptibles que ceux qui ne l'étaient pas (risque relatif [RR] 2,2, IC à 95 % 1,8 à 2,8, p < 0,001) de déclarer des intentions de se faire tester contre la COVID-19. Les participants partiellement vaccinés avaient des intentions moins positives que les participants pleinement vaccinés (RR 0,68, IC à 95 % 0,52 à 0,89, p < 0,001), mais plus élevées que ceux qui ne l'étaient pas du tout (RR 1,5, IC à 95 % 1,4 à 1,6, p = 0,002). DISCUSSION: La vaccination était prédictive de plus grandes intentions de subir un test de COVID-19 et établissait un biais important à l'égard de l'efficacité réelle des vaccins. Pour tenir compte des comportements différentiels vis-à-vis des tests, les méthodologies de tests négatifs constituent actuellement la solution privilégiée, mais cette hypothèse doit être approfondie.

2.
J Health Commun ; 27(7): 439-449, 2022 Jul 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2031950

ABSTRACT

Communicating health information quickly and effectively with diverse populations has been essential during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, health communication practices are often top down and poorly designed to rapidly meet diverse health literacy, cultural and contextual needs of the population. This paper describes a research and practice partnership focused on health literacy, multicultural health, and community engagement to address COVID-19 in Australia. The partnership became influential in the local and state-based response to the COVID-19 Delta outbreak in Western and South Western Sydney, an area of high cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Our approach, bringing together academic researchers and frontline health staff working with multicultural populations using a model of co-design and community engagement and action via the "4 M model," has been successful. It supported the Western Sydney community to achieve some of the highest vaccination rates in the world (>90%). There is an ongoing need to engage respectfully and responsively with communities to address specific challenges that they face and tailor communications and supports accordingly for successful pandemic management. Combining co-designed empirical research with community engagement and action ensures needs are robustly identified and can be appropriately addressed to support an effective public health response.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Literacy , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Cultural Diversity , Australia/epidemiology
3.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(11)2022 06 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1953393

ABSTRACT

Central to a successful population vaccination program is high uptake of vaccines. However, COVID-19 vaccine uptake may be impeded by beliefs based on misinformation. We sought to understand the prevalence and nature of misbeliefs about COVID-19 vaccines, and identify associated factors, shortly after commencement of Australia's national vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional survey was administered to unvaccinated young adults (n = 2050) in Australia aged 18-49 years (mean age 33 years), 13 July-21 August 2021. This sample was previously under-represented in COVID-19 research but shown to have less willingness to vaccinate. Two thirds of participants agreed with at least one misbelief item. Misperceptions about COVID-19 vaccines were found to be significantly associated with lower health literacy, less knowledge about vaccines, lower perceived personal risk of COVID-19, greater endorsement of conspiracy beliefs, and lower confidence and trust in government and scientific institutions. Misbeliefs were more common in participants with less educational attainment, in younger age groups, and in males, as per previous research. Understanding determinants and barriers to vaccination uptake, such as knowledge and beliefs based on misinformation, can help to shape effective public health communication and inform debunking efforts at this critical time and in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Male , Vaccination , Young Adult
4.
BMJ Open ; 12(6): e062706, 2022 06 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1902023

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Although the media can influence public perceptions and utilisation of healthcare, journalists generally receive no routine training in interpreting and reporting on medical research. Given growing evidence about the problems of medical overuse, the need for quality media reporting has become a greater priority. This study aimed to codesign and assess the feasibility of a multicomponent training intervention for journalists in Australia. DESIGN: A small pragmatic feasibility study using a pre- and postdesign. SETTING: 90 min online workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Eight journalists currently working in Australia, recruited through the study's journalist advisor and existing contacts of the researchers. INTERVENTION: The training intervention covered a range of topics, including study designs, conflicts of interest, misleading medical statistics, population screening and overdiagnosis. The intervention also provided tools to help journalists with reporting, including a Tip Sheet and list of expert contacts in health and medicine. Preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires were administered via Qualtrics. MEASURES: Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, and journalists' knowledge of overdiagnosis and common issues with health stories. Quantitative results were analysed descriptively using SPSS. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: All participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires, and 6 completed the 6-week follow-up (75% retention). Feasibility findings suggest the intervention is acceptable and relevant to journalists, with participants indicating the workshop increased confidence with reporting on medical research. We observed increases in knowledge preworkshop to postworkshop for all knowledge measures on overdiagnosis and common issues with media coverage of medicine. Analysis of free-text responses identified several areas for improvement, such as including more examples to aid understanding of the counterintuitive topic of overdiagnosis and more time for discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Piloting suggested the multicomponent training intervention is acceptable to journalists and provided important feedback and insights to inform a future trial of the intervention's impact on media coverage of medicine.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Mass Media , Australia , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires
6.
BMJ Open ; 12(5): e058323, 2022 05 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832459

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To explore the psychological, social and financial outcomes of COVID-19-and the sociodemographic predictors of those outcomes-among culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Sydney, Australia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey informed by the Framework for Culturally Competent Health Research conducted between March and July 2021. SETTING: Participants who primarily speak a language other than English at home were recruited from Greater Western Sydney, New South Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 708 community members (mean age: 45.4 years (range 18-91)). 88% (n=622) were born outside of Australia, 31% (n=220) did not speak English well or at all, and 41% (n=290) had inadequate health literacy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirteen items regarding COVID-19-related psychological, social and financial outcomes were adapted from validated scales, previous surveys or co-designed in partnership with Multicultural Health and interpreter service staff. Logistic regression models (using poststratification weighted frequencies) were used to identify sociodemographic predictors of outcomes. Surveys were available in English or translated (11 languages). RESULTS: In this analysis, conducted prior to the 2021 COVID-19 outbreak in Sydney, 25% of the sample reported feeling nervous or stressed most/all of the time and 22% felt lonely or alone most/all of the time. A quarter of participants reported negative impacts on their spousal relationships as a result of COVID-19 and most parents reported that their children were less active (64%), had more screen time (63%) and were finding school harder (45%). Mean financial burden was 2.9/5 (95% CI 2.8 to 2.9). Regression analyses consistently showed more negative outcomes for those with comorbidities and differences across language groups. CONCLUSION: Culturally and linguistically diverse communities experience significant psychological, social and financial impacts of COVID-19. A whole-of-government approach is needed to support rapid co-design of culturally safe support packages in response to COVID-19 and other national health emergencies, tailored appropriately to specific language groups and accounting for pre-existing health disparities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Literacy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Language , Middle Aged , Young Adult
7.
Public Health Res Pract ; 2022 Apr 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1818834

ABSTRACT

Since 2020, hundreds of thousands of more deaths than expected have been observed across the globe. Amid the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, current research priorities are to control the spread of infection and minimise loss of life. However, there may be future opportunities to learn from the pandemic to build a better healthcare system that delivers maximum health benefits with minimum harm. So far, much research has focused on foregone benefits of healthcare services such as cancer screening during the pandemic. A more balanced approach is to recognise that all healthcare services have potential harms as well as benefits. In this way, we may be able to use pandemic 'natural experiments' to identify cases where a reduction in a healthcare service has not been harmful to the population and some instances where this may have even been beneficial.

8.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327453

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Objective To provide an overview of Australian residential aged care facilities’ (RACFs’) COVID-19 outbreak preparedness and responses, 12 months after the pandemic began in early 2020. Methods A cross-sectional survey of RACF managers was conducted as part of an overview of COVID-19 experience during 2020. Survey questions were based on findings of previous outbreak reviews. Results Comparison with available data from the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare suggested that survey respondents (n=331) were a representative sample. Almost all RACFs had outbreak management plans, including provision for a surge workforce. However, anticipated staff replacements fell short of those often required during outbreaks. Staff of most (83%) RACFs had completed online infection control training, and a smaller proportion (73%) face-to-face training, by the time of the survey. Exploratory analyses to identify RACF characteristics associated with increased outbreak risk found a strong association with location in Victoria (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 12.8) where most community transmission occurred during 2020. The only other association was an increased risk in facilities where all staff had not completed face-to-face infection control training (aRR 2.1). Respondents ranked leadership and management;planning and preparation;and infection control as the top three of seven critical lines of defence against COVID-19. Conclusion Survey results suggest that, in early 2021, most Australian RACFs were better prepared for the ongoing risk of COVID-19 than in 2020. Continued implementation of the Aged Care Royal Commission’s recommendations is needed to ensure the aged care sector is prepared for future infectious disease emergencies.

10.
Aust J Prim Health ; 27(5): 357-363, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1442865

ABSTRACT

Limited studies at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic found GPs have been negatively affected by increased workload, reduced income and major concerns about staff and patient safety. This study aimed to investigate the challenges of COVID-19 in general practice 1 year since it was declared a pandemic. A national cross-sectional online survey was conducted in March 2021 of a convenience sample of 295 Australian GPs attending an online educational webcast. Twenty-five multipart and free-text questions collected information regarding GPs' main COVID-19-related issues and concerns, including COVID-19 vaccines, useful sources of information, information needs and their perceived role as GPs in COVID-19 management. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all quantitative variables. Content analysis was used to analyse text data from open-ended questions. Of the 596 eligible attendees of the online educational webcast, 295 completed the survey (49.5% response rate). One year since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, GPs still have concerns regarding patients ignoring prescreening and presenting with flu-like symptoms, the safety of their colleagues and family and catching COVID-19 themselves, as well as concerns about the effect of the pandemic on their patients and patients delaying essential care for non-COVID-19 conditions. More education and resources about vaccines was identified as the top information need, which will assist with what GPs' perceived to be their key roles in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, namely educating the public, correcting misunderstandings and providing the COVID-19 vaccine. These findings highlight gaps in communication and information, particularly regarding COVID-19 vaccines. GPs need high-quality information and resources to support them in undertaking complex risk communication with their patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , General Practitioners , Australia , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Lancet Reg Health West Pac ; 14: 100250, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1356352
14.
Vaccine ; 40(17): 2484-2490, 2022 04 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1340877

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccination rollout against COVID-19 is underway across multiple countries worldwide. Although the vaccine is free, rollout might still be compromised by hesitancy or concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We conducted two online surveys of Australian adults in April (during national lockdown; convenience cross-sectional sample) and November (very few cases of COVID-19; nationally representative sample) 2020, prior to vaccine rollout. We asked about intentions to have a potential COVID-19 vaccine (If a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, I will get it) and free-text responses (November only). RESULTS: After adjustment for differences in sample demographics, the estimated proportion agreeing to a COVID-19 vaccine if it became available in April (n = 1146) was 76.3%. In November (n = 1941) this was estimated at 71.5% of the sample; additional analyses identified that the variation was driven by differences in perceived public health threat between April and November. Across both surveys, female gender, being younger, having inadequate health literacy and lower education were associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, belief that data on the efficacy of vaccines is 'largely made up', having lower confidence in government, and lower perception of COVID-19 as a public health threat, were also associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The top three reasons for agreeing to vaccinate (November only) were to protect myself and others, moral responsibility, and having no reason not to get it. For those who were indifferent or disagreeing to vaccinate, safety concerns were the top reason, followed by indecision and lack of trust in the vaccine respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight some factors related to willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine prior to one being available in Australia. Now that the vaccine is being offered, this study identifies key issues that can inform public health messaging to address vaccine hesitancy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Communicable Disease Control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
15.
Respirology ; 26(8): 729-730, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286701

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Humans
16.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0253930, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286875

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In Australia in March 2020 a national public health directive required that non-essential workers stay at home, except for essential activities. These restrictions began easing in May 2020 as community transmission slowed. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated changes in COVID prevention behaviours from April-July 2020, and psychosocial predictors of these behaviours. METHODS: An Australia-wide (national) survey was conducted in April, with monthly follow-up over four months. Participants who were adults (18+ years), currently residing in Australia and who could read and understand English were eligible. Recruitment was via online social media. Analysis sample included those who provided responses to the baseline survey (April) and at least one subsequent follow-up survey (N = 1834 out of a possible 3216 who completed the April survey). 71.7% of the sample was female (n = 1,322). Principal components analysis (PCA) combined self-reported adherence across seven prevention behaviours. PCA identified two behaviour types: 'distancing' (e.g. staying 1.5m away) and 'hygiene' (e.g. washing hands), explaining 28.3% and 24.2% of variance, respectively. Distancing and hygiene behaviours were analysed individually using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: On average, participants agreed with statements of adherence for all behaviours (means all above 4 out of 7). Distancing behaviours declined each month (p's < .001), whereas hygiene behaviours remained relatively stable. For distancing, stronger perceptions of societal risk, self-efficacy to maintain distancing, and greater perceived social obligation at baseline were associated with adherence in June and July (p's<0.05). For hygiene, the only significant correlate of adherence in June and July was belief that one's actions could prevent infection of family members (p < .001). CONCLUSION: High adherence to COVID prevention behaviours were reported in this social media sample; however, distancing behaviours tended to decrease over time. Belief in social responsibility may be an important aspect to consider in encouraging distancing behaviours. These findings have implications for managing a shift from government-imposed restrictions to individual responsibility.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Behavior , Social Media , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Hygiene , Male , Middle Aged , Physical Distancing , Principal Component Analysis , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Efficacy , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
17.
JMIRx Med ; 2(1): e25610, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256247

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how people with hypertension are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic given their increased risk, and whether targeted public health strategies are needed. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective case-control study compared people with hypertension to matched healthy controls during the COVID-19 lockdown to determine whether they have higher risk perceptions, anxiety, and vaccination intentions. METHODS: Baseline data from a national survey were collected in April 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdown in Australia. People who reported hypertension with no other chronic conditions were randomly matched to healthy controls of similar age, gender, education, and health literacy level. A subset including participants with hypertension was followed up at 2 months after restrictions were eased. Risk perceptions, anxiety, and vaccination intentions were measured in April and June. RESULTS: Of the 4362 baseline participants, 466 (10.7%) reported hypertension with no other chronic conditions. A subset of 1369 people were followed up at 2 months, which included 147 (10.7%) participants with hypertension. At baseline, perceived seriousness was high for both hypertension and control groups. The hypertension group reported greater anxiety compared to the controls and were more willing to vaccinate against influenza, but COVID-19 vaccination intentions were similar. At follow-up, these differences were no longer present in the longitudinal subsample. Perceived seriousness and anxiety had decreased, but vaccination intentions for both influenza and COVID-19 remained high across groups (>80%). CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety was above normal levels during the COVID-19 lockdown. It was higher in the hypertension group, which also had higher vaccination intentions. Groups that are more vulnerable to COVID-19 may require targeted mental health screening during periods of greater risk. Despite a decrease in perceived risk and anxiety after 2 months of lockdown restrictions, vaccination intentions remained high, which is encouraging for the future prevention of COVID-19.

18.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e043991, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1255594

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Promotional media coverage of early detection tests is an important driver of overdiagnosis. Following research evidence that global media coverage presents the benefits of testing healthy people far more frequently than harms, and gives little coverage to overdiagnosis, we sought to examine journalists' views on media reporting of tests, overdiagnosis, and strategies to improve critical reporting on tests. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were conducted between February and March 2020 and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Twenty-two journalists (mainly specialising in health reporting, average 14.5 years' experience) based in Australia. RESULTS: This sample of journalists acknowledged the potential harms of medical tests but felt that knowledge of harms was low among journalists and the public at large. Most were aware of the term overdiagnosis, but commonly felt that it is challenging to both understand and communicate in light of strong beliefs in the benefits of early detection. Journalists felt that newsworthiness in the form of major public health impact was the key ingredient for stories about medical tests. The journalists acknowledged that factors, like the press release and 'click bait culture' in particular, can influence the framing of coverage about tests. Lack of knowledge and training, as well as time pressures, were perceived to be the main barriers to critical reporting on tests. Journalists felt that training and better access to information about potential harms would enable more critical reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Effectively communicating overdiagnosis is a challenge in light of common beliefs about the benefits of testing and the culture of current journalism practices. Providing journalists with training, support and better access to information about potential harms of tests could aid critical reporting of tests.


Subject(s)
Mass Media , Public Health , Australia , Humans , Medical Overuse/prevention & control , Qualitative Research
19.
Trials ; 22(1): 311, 2021 Apr 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1216927

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Uptake of vaccination against COVID-19 is key to controlling the pandemic. However, a significant proportion of people report that they do not intend to have a vaccine, often because of concerns they have about vaccine side effects or safety. This study will assess the impact of theory-based messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention, drawing on the Necessity-Concerns framework to address previously reported beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination, and assess whether hypothesised variables (illness coherence, perceived necessity and concerns) mediate change in vaccination intention. TRIAL DESIGN: Prospective, parallel two-arm, individually randomised (1:1) trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged over 18 years, living in Scotland and not vaccinated for COVID-19. A quota sampling approach will be used with the aim of achieving a nationally representative sample on gender, region and ethnic group, with oversampling of individuals with no educational qualifications or with only school-level qualifications. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Brief exposure to online text and image-based messages addressing necessity beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination. Comparator: Brief exposure to online text and image-based messages containing general information about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary outcome: Self-reported intention to receive a vaccine for COVID-19 if invited, immediately post-intervention. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Self-reported COVID-19 illness coherence, perceived necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine and concerns about a COVID-19 vaccine, immediately post-intervention. RANDOMISATION: Quasi-randomisation performed automatically by online survey software, by creating a variable derived from the number of seconds in the minute that the participant initiates the survey. Participants starting the survey at 0-14 or 30-44 seconds in the minute are allocated to the intervention and 15-29 or 45-59 seconds to the comparator. BLINDING (MASKING): Participants will not be blinded to group assignment but will not be informed of the purpose of the study until they have completed the follow-up survey. Investigators will be blinded to allocation as all procedures will be undertaken digitally and remotely without any investigator contact with participants. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 1,094 will be randomised 1:1 into two groups with 547 individuals in each. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version number 1.0, 26th February 2021. Recruitment status: Not yet recruiting, set to start April 2021 and end April 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04813770 , 24th March 2021. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Intention , Vaccination/psychology , Adult , Humans , Prospective Studies , Psychological Theory , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Scotland , Treatment Outcome
20.
Health Promot J Austr ; 33(2): 311-319, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1187989

ABSTRACT

ISSUE ADDRESSED: To investigate whether Australians have experienced any positive effects during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: National online longitudinal survey. As part of a June 2020 survey, participants (n = 1370) were asked 'In your life, have you experienced any positive effects from the COVID-19 pandemic' (yes/no) and also completed the World Health Organisation-Five well-being index. Differences were explored by demographic variables. Free-text responses were thematically coded. RESULTS: Nine hundred sixty participants (70%) reported experiencing at least one positive effect during the COVID-19 pandemic. Living with others (P = .045) and employment situation (P < .001) at baseline (April) were associated with experiencing positive effects. Individuals working for pay from home were more likely to experience positive effects compared to those who were not working for pay (aOR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.63, P < .001) or who were working for pay outside the home (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.58, P < .001). 54.2% of participants reported a sufficient level of well-being, 23.2% low well-being and a further 22.6% very low well-being. Of those experiencing positive effects, 945/960 (98%) provided an explanation. The three most common themes were 'Family time' (33%), 'Work flexibility' (29%) and 'Calmer life' (19%). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of participants reported positive effects resulting from changes to daily life due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. SO WHAT: The needs of people living alone, and of those having to work outside the home or who are unemployed, should be considered by health policymakers and employers in future pandemic preparedness efforts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Employment , Humans , Longitudinal Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL