Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on community antibiotic prescribing and stewardship: a qualitative interview study with general practitioners in England (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care services. We aimed to identify general practitioners (GPs) perceptions and experiences of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in general practice in England. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 GPs at two time-points: autumn 2020 (14 interviews) and spring 2021 (10 interviews). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, taking a longitudinal approach. Participants reported a lower threshold for antibiotic prescribing (and fewer consultations) for respiratory infections and COVID-19 symptoms early in the pandemic, then returning to more usual (pre-pandemic) prescribing. They perceived less impact on antibiotic prescribing for urinary and skin infections. Participants perceived the changing ways of working and consulting (e.g., proportions of remote and in-person consultations), and the changing patient presentations and GP workload as influencing the fluctuations in antibiotic prescribing. This was compounded by decreased engagement with, and priority of, AMS due to COVID-19-related urgent priorities. Re-engagement with AMS is needed, e.g., through reviving antibiotic prescribing feedback and targets/incentives. While the pandemic disrupted the usual ways of working, it also produced opportunities, e.g., for re-organising ways of managing infections and AMS in the future.

Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries (preprint)

Objectives: To explore the views and experiences of scientists working on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim to learn lessons for future pandemic management and preparedness. Design: Explorative qualitative interview study. Participants: Twenty one scientists with an official government advisory role during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium, the Netherlands, UK, Sweden or Germany. Methods: Online video or telephone semi-structured interviews took place between December 2020 and April 2021. They were audio recorded and transcribed, and analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques. Results: Scientists found working on the advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic to be a rewarding experience. However, they identified numerous challenges including learning to work in an interdisciplinary way, ensuring that evidence is understood and taken on board by governments, and dealing with media and public reactions. Scientists found themselves taking on new roles, the boundaries of which were not clearly defined. Consequently, they received substantial media attention and were often perceived and treated as a public figure. Conclusions: Scientists working on advisory boards in European countries faced similar challenges, highlighting key lessons to be learnt. Future pandemic preparedness efforts should focus on building interdisciplinary collaboration within advisory boards; ensuring transparency in how boards operate; defining and protecting boundaries of the scientific advisor role; and supporting scientists to inform the public in the fight against disinformation, whilst dealing with potential hostile reactions.

Conditionality of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in European countries (preprint)

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout in recent months offers a powerful preventive measure that may help control SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Nevertheless, long-standing public hesitation around vaccines has heightened public health concerns that vaccine coverage may not achieve desired public health impacts.This cross-sectional survey was conducted online in December 2020 among 7000 respondents (aged 18 to 65) in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Ukraine. The survey included open text boxes for fuller explanation of responses. Projected COVID-19 vaccine coverage varied and may not be sufficiently high among certain populations to achieve herd immunity. Overall, 56.9% would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 19.0% would not, and 24.1% did not know or preferred not to say. By country, between 44% (France) and 66% (Italy) of respondents would accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Respondents expressed conditionality in open responses, voicing concerns about vaccine safety and mistrust of authorities. Public health campaigns must tackle these safety concerns.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Community COVID-19 Testing Strategies (FACTS) in a University Setting (preprint)

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the UK government began a mass SARS-CoV-2 testing programme. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of organised regular self-testing for SARS-CoV-2.Methods: This was a mixed methods observational cohort study in asymptomatic students and staff at University of Oxford, who performed SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow self-testing. Data on uptake and adherence, acceptability, and test interpretation were collected via a smartphone app, an online survey, and qualitative interviews.Findings: Across three main sites, 551 participants (25% of those invited) performed 2728 tests during a follow-up of 5.6 weeks. 447 participants (81%) completed at least two, and 340 (62%) completed at least four tests. The survey, completed by 214 participants (39%), found that 98% of people were confident to self-test and believed self-testing to be beneficial. Acceptability of self-testing was high, with 91% of ratings being acceptable or very acceptable. 2711 (99.4%) test results were negative, nine were positive and eight were inconclusive. Results from eighteen qualitative interviews with staff and students revealed that participants valued regular testing, but there were concerns about test accuracy that impacted uptake and adherence.Interpretation: This is the first study to assess feasibility and acceptability of regular SARS-CoV-2 self-testing. It provides evidence to inform recruitment, adherence to, and acceptability of regular SARS-CoV-2 self-testing programmes for asymptomatic individuals using lateral flow tests. We found that self-testing is acceptable and people were able to interpret results accurately.Funding: This work was funded by Oxford University Medical Science DivisionsDeclaration of Interests: LT works part-time for Sensyne Health as R&D Director and holds share options in the company. He also reports a research grant and personal fees from the company.Ethics Approval Statement: FACTS is a mixed methods cohort study conducted at the University of Oxford. It was approved by the University of Oxford Research Ethics Committee in October 2020 (CUREC ethics reference R72896/RE001).

Title page Title Perspectives on COVID-19 testing policies and practices: a qualitative study with scientific advisors and NHS health care workers in England (preprint)

Background As COVID-19 death rates have risen and health-care systems have experienced increased demand, national testing strategies have come under scrutiny. Utilising qualitative interview data from a larger COVID-19 study, this paper provides insights into influences on and the enactment of national COVID-19 testing strategies for health care workers (HCWs) in English NHS settings during wave one of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-August 2020). We aim to inform COVID-19 learning and future pandemic diagnostic preparedness.Methods A remote qualitative, semi-structured longitudinal interview method was employed with a purposive snowball sample of senior scientific advisors to the UK Government on COVID-19, and HCWs employed in NHS primary and secondary health care settings in England. 24 interviews from 13 participants were selected from the larger project dataset. Framework analysis was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability of patient-facing health and care technologies implementation framework (NASSS) and by normalisation process theory (NPT).Results Our account highlights tensions between the communication and implementation of national testing developments; scientific advisor and HCW perceptions about infectiousness; and uncertainties about the responsibility for testing and its implications at the local level.Conclusions Consideration must be given to the implications of mass NHS staff testing, including the accuracy of information communicated to HCWs; how HCWs interpret, manage, and act on testing guidance; and the influence these have on health care organisations and services.

Perceptions on undertaking regular asymptomatic self-testing for COVID-19 using lateral flow tests: A qualitative study of university students and staff (preprint)

Background There has been an increased interest from governments in implementing mass testing for COVID-19 of asymptomatic individuals using Lateral Flow Tests (LFTs). Successful implementation of such programmes depends on several factors, including feasibility, acceptability and how people act on test results. There is a paucity of studies examining these issues. Objective We aimed to examine experiences of university students and staff with experience of regular asymptomatic self-testing using LFTs, and their subsequent behaviours. Methods We invited people who were participating in a weekly testing feasibility study. We conducted semi-structured remote interviews between December 2020 and January 2021. Additional qualitative data from a survey were also analysed. Data were analysed thematically. Results We interviewed 18 and surveyed 214 participants. Participants were motivated to regularly self-test as they wanted to know whether or not they were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Most reported that a negative test result did not change their behaviour but it did provide them with reassurance to engage with permitted activities. In contrast, some participants reported making decisions about visiting other people when they would not have done so otherwise, because they felt reassured by a negative test result. Participants valued the test training but some participants still doubted their ability to carry out the test. Participants were concerned about safety of attending test sites with lots of people and reported home testing was most convenient. Conclusions If governments want to increase uptake of LFT use, clear messages highlighting the benefits of regular testing for family, friends and society in identifying asymptomatic cases are needed. This should be coupled with transparent communication about accuracy of LFTs and how to act on either a positive or negative result. Concerns about safety, convenience of testing, and ability to do tests need to be addressed to ensure successful scaling up asymptomatic testing.

The experience of European hospital-based healthcare workers on following infection prevention and control procedures for COVID-19 (preprint)

BackgroundWorking under pandemic conditions exposes health care workers (HCWs) to infection risk and psychological strain. Protecting the physical and psychological health of HCWs is a key priority. This study assessed the perceptions of European hospital HCWs of local infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on their emotional wellbeing. MethodsWe performed two rounds of an international cross-sectional survey, between 31 March and 17 April 2020 via existing research networks (round 1), and between 14 May and 31 August 2020 via online convenience sampling (round 2). Main outcome measures were (1) behavioural determinants of HCW adherence with IPC procedures, (2) WHO-5 Well-Being Index, a validated scale of 0-100 reflecting emotional wellbeing. The WHO-5 was interpreted as a score below or above 50 points, a cut-off score used in previous literature to screen for depression. Results2,289 HCWs (round 1: n=190, round 2: n=2,099) from 40 countries in Europe participated. Mean age of respondents was 42 ({+/-}11) years, 66% were female, 47% and 39% were medical doctors and nurses, respectively. 74% (n=1699) of HCWs were directly treating patients with COVID-19, of which 32% (n=527) reported they were fearful of caring for these patients. HCWs reported high levels of concern about COVID-19 infection risk to themselves (71%) and their family (82%) as a result of their job. 40% of HCWs considered that getting infected with COVID-19 was not within their control. This was more common among junior than senior HCWs (46% versus 38%, P value <.01). Sufficient COVID-19-specific IPC training, confidence in PPE use and institutional trust were positively associated with the feeling that becoming infected with COVID-19 was within their control. Female HCWs were more likely than males to report a WHO-5 score below 50 points (aOR 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.8). ConclusionsIn Europe, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a differential impact on those providing direct COVID-19 patient care, junior staff and women. Health facilities must be aware of these differential impacts, build trust and provide tailored support for this vital workforce during the current COVID-19 pandemic.