The Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework for developing public health interventions, messaging and guidance (preprint)

A lesson identified from the COVID-19 pandemic is that we need to extend existing best practice for intervention development by establishing better methods of rapidly coproducing public health interventions and messaging to support all population groups to protect themselves and their communities, together with better methods of rapidly evaluating interventions to determine which are acceptable and effective. This paper describes the Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework, which is intended to provide a focus for investigating new ways of rapidly developing effective interventions and messaging by combining co-production methods with large-scale testing and/or real-world evaluation. We briefly review some of the participatory, qualitative and quantitative methods that could potentially be combined and propose a research agenda to further develop, refine and validate packages of methods in a variety of public health contexts to determine which combinations are feasible, cost-effective and achieve the goal of improving health and reducing health inequalities.

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

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.

Understanding adherence to self-isolation in the first phase of COVID-19 response (preprint)

Objective: To gain a better understanding of decisions around adherence to self-isolation advice during the first phase of the COVID-19 response in England. Design: A mixed-methods cross sectional study. Setting: England Participants COVID-19 cases and contacts who were contacted by Public Health England (PHE) during the first phase of the response in England (January-March 2020). Results: Of 250 respondents who were advised to self-isolate, 63% reported not leaving home at all during their isolation period, 20% reported leaving only for lower risk activities (dog walking or exercise) and 16% reported leaving for potentially higher risk, reasons (shopping, medical appointments, childcare, meeting family or friends). Factors associated with adherence to never going out included: the belief that following isolation advice would save lives, experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, being advised to stay in their room (rather than just inside), having help from outside and having regular contact by text message from PHE. Factors associated with non-adherence included being angry about the advice to isolate, being unable to get groceries delivered and concerns about losing touch with friends and family. Interviews highlighted that a sense of duty motivated people to adhere to isolation guidance and where people did leave their homes, these decisions were based on rational calculations of the risk of transmission; people would only leave their homes when they thought they were unlikely to come into contact with others. Conclusions: Measures of adherence should be nuanced to allow for the adaptations people make to their behaviour during isolation. Understanding adherence to isolation and associated reasoning during the early stages of the pandemic is an essential part of pandemic preparedness for future emerging infectious diseases.

A mixed methods analysis of participation in social contact surveys (preprint)

Background Social contact survey data forms a core component of modern epidemic models: however, there has been little assessment of the potential biases in such data. Methods We conducted focus groups with university students who had (n=13) and had not (n=14) completed a social contact survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative findings were explored quantitatively by analysing participation data. Results The opportunity to contribute to COVID-19 research, to be heard and feel useful were frequently reported motivators for participating in the contact survey. Reductions in survey engagement following lifting of COVID-19 restrictions may have occurred because the research was perceived to be less critical and/ or because the participants were busier and had more contacts. Having a high number of contacts to report, uncertainty around how to report each contact, and concerns around confidentiality were identified as factors leading to inaccurate reporting. Focus groups participants thought that financial incentives or provision of study results would encourage participation. Conclusions Incentives could improve engagement with social contact surveys. Qualitative research can inform the format, timing, and wording of surveys to optimise completion and accuracy. Graphical abstract

A qualitative process analysis of DCT as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19 (preprint)

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 devise (LFT) and 2 PCR tests as an alternative to 10 days of standard self-isolation with 1 PCR, following close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19. DCT appeared equivalent to self-isolation in terms of transmission in the trial, however it was not clear how tests were viewed and used in practice. In this qualitative study, we used a nested process 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 positive case of COVID-19 and had consented to take part in the trial. Results Sub-themes emerging from the 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 highly regarded as a way to 'return to new 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.

Exploring the impact of shielding advice on the health and wellbeing of individuals identified as extremely vulnerable and advised to shield in Southwest England amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods evaluation (preprint)

Objective: Explore the impact and responses to public health advice on the health and wellbeing of individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) and advised to shield (not leave home for 12 weeks at start of the pandemic) in Southwest England during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Design: Mixed-methods study; structured survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Setting: Communities served by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group. Participants: 204 people (57% female, 54% >69 years, 94% White British, 64% retired) in Southwest England identified as CEV and were advised to shield completed the survey. Thirteen survey respondents participated in follow-up interviews (53% female, 40% >69years, 100% White British, 61% retired). Results: 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 or more on the PHQ-9 questionnaire indicating possible depression and 15% scored 10 or more on the GAD-7 questionnaire indicating possible anxiety. Conclusions: This research highlights the difficulties in providing generic messaging that is applicable and appropriate given the diversity of individuals identified as CEV and the importance of sharing tailored and timely advice to inform shielding decisions. Providing messages that reinforce self-determined action and assistance from support services could reduce the negative impact of shielding on mental health and feelings of social isolation.

Exploration of attitudes regarding uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccine hesitant adults in the UK: A qualitative analysis (preprint)

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 those who were vaccine hesitant. 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 30-49 years who had not received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (more than 12 weeks after receiving a first). Results A total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose of the vaccine, and 35 had not received any vaccine. Participants described a possible willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe, and to avoid restrictions and return to normal. 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 the age and health status of the individual, trust in government and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may also 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 infection and transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted with regard to the possible long-term side-effects. These concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in the government, and misunderstanding of science. In order to promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that carefully 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.

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 (preprint)

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.

Low uptake of COVID-19 lateral flow testing among university students: a mixed methods evaluation (preprint)

BackgroundUniversity populations offer a unique opportunity to quantify COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) uptake. MethodsMixed methods evaluation of LFT among University of Bristol students comprising an analysis of testing uptake using logistic regression analyses; a survey; and qualitative interviews to explore experiences of testing and subsequent behaviour. Results12,391 LFTs were conducted on 8025/36,054 (22.3%) students. Only one in 10 students had the recommended two tests. There were striking demographic disparities in uptake with those from ethnic minority groups having lower uptake (e.g. 3% of Chinese students were tested vs. 30.7% of White students), and variations by level and year of study (ranging from 5.3% to 33.7%), place of residence (29.0% to 35.6%) and faculty (15.2% to 32.8%). Barriers to engagement with testing included a lack of awareness, knowledge and understanding, and concerns about the accuracy and safety. Students understood limitations of LFTs but requested further information about test accuracy. Tests were used to inform behavioural decisions, often in combination with other information, such as the potential for exposure to the virus and perceptions of vulnerability. ConclusionsThe low uptake of testing brings into question the role of mass LFT in university settings.

Engagement with daily testing instead of self-isolating in contacts of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2: A qualitative analysis (preprint)

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. (preprint)

BackgroundIn 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 acceptability of and engagement with daily testing, and assessed levels of adherence to the rules relating to behaviour following positive or negative test results. MethodsWe conducted a service evaluation of a pilot study, involving an online cross-sectional survey offered to adult (> 18 years) contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases who were invited to participate in seven days of daily testing instead of isolation. We used a comparison group of contacts who were not offered testing and performed self-isolation. Herein, we examine survey responses from a subset of those who took part in the pilot study and who responded to the evaluation questionnaire. ResultsAcceptability of daily testing was lower among survey respondents who were not offered the option of having it 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 demographic group differences. Following a negative test, 13% of respondents reported that they increased their contacts, but most (58%) reported having fewer risky contacts. ConclusionsOur data suggest that daily testing is potentially acceptable, and 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, much of the population has been vaccinated and restrictions on activity have been reduced.

Understanding patterns of adherence to COVID-19 mitigation measures: A qualitative interview study. (preprint)

In an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19, the UK government has introduced a series of mitigation measures. The success of these measures in preventing transmission is dependent on adherence, which is currently considered to be low. Evidence highlights the disproportionate impact of mitigation measures on individuals from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, as well as among those on a low income, and an understanding of barriers to adherence in these populations is needed. In this qualitative study we examined patterns of adherence to mitigation measures and reasons underpinning these behaviors among people on low income and those from BAME communities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants from BAME and low-income White backgrounds. The topic guide was designed to explore how individuals are adhering to social distancing and self-isolation measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore in detail the reasons underpinning this behavior. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis following which charts were used to help compare concepts within and between participants and develop an understanding of patterns of adherence. Participants were confused by the constantly changing and seemingly contradictory rules and guidance. As a result, decisions were made about how best to protect themselves and their household from COVID-19, and from the detrimental impact of lockdown restrictions. This was not always in line with government advice. We identified three categories of adherence to lockdown measures 1) caution motivated super-adherence 2) risk-adapted partial-adherence and 3) necessity-driven partial-adherence. Decisions about adherence considered potential for exposure to the virus, ability to reduce risk through use of protective measures, and perceived importance of/need for the behavior. This research highlights a need for a more nuanced understanding of adherence to lockdown measures. Provision of practical and financial support could reduce the number of people who have to engage in necessity-driven partial-adherence. Information about viral transmission could help people assess the risk associated with partial-adherence more accurately. More evidence is required on population level risks of people adopting risk-adapted partial-adherence.

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 (preprint)

BackgroundDigital interventions have potential to efficiently support improved hygiene practices to reduce transmission of COVID-19. ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence for digital interventions to improve hygiene practices within the community. MethodsWe 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. ResultsWe 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 confirmed improvements using objective measures (reduced consultations and antibiotic prescriptions), Germ Defence. 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. ConclusionThere was only one intervention 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.

Preventing within household transmission of COVID-19: Is self-isolation outside the home feasible and acceptable? (preprint)

Background Within-household transmission of COVID-19 is responsible for a significant number of infections. The risk of within-household infection is greatly increased among those from Black Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) and low income communities. Efforts to protect these communities are urgently needed. The aim of this study is to explore the acceptability of provision of accommodation to support isolation outside the home among at risk populations. Methods Our study used a mixed methods design structured in two phases. In phase 1, we conducted a survey study of a sample of volunteers from our existing database of 300 individuals who had provided consent to be contacted about ongoing research projects into reducing infection transmission. In phase 2, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 participants from BAME communities and low income communities recruited through social media. Results Many participants from both the survey and interview phase of the study viewed the provision of accommodation to support isolation as both important and necessary to protect the household and control the virus. Factors influencing likely uptake of accommodation included perceived 1) vulnerability of household 2) exposure to the virus and 3) options for isolation within the home. Barriers to isolation outside the home included 1) being able to isolate at home 2) not wanting to be apart from family 3) caring for others 4) concerns about the implications of isolation for mental wellbeing 5) upheaval of moving when ill and 6) perceived risk to and from others in the building. Participants raised a series of issues surrounding the provision of accommodation outside the home that should be addressed before it could be offered. These included questions regarding who should use temporary accommodation and at what stage to effectively reduce transmission in the home, and how infection control in temporary accommodation would be managed. Concerns were also raised among those with caring duties and responsibilities. Conclusion This research provides evidence that the provision of accommodation to support isolation outside the home is viewed as acceptable, feasible and necessary by many people who are concerned about infection transmission in the home. We explore ways in which isolation outside the home might be offered to suit the needs of people in different circumstances. In particular, vulnerable members of the household could be protected if accommodation is offered to individuals who are informed through test trace and isolate that they have been in contact with the virus.