"We all see things through a different lens based on our life experiences": co-production of a web-based implementation toolkit with stakeholders across the health and social care system.

Background: Implementing new innovations across the health and social care system is complex, involving many factors that in recent years have been compounded by Covid-19. While a plethora of implementation tools and frameworks are available, there are limitations in terms of their design and accessibility. Co-production is a valuable mechanism for developing tools that have utility and accessibility for those tasked with using them in health and social care organisations and there is growing acknowledgement of increasing the role of co-production in implementation science. This paper provides novel insight into co-production practices and relevance to implementation science by reporting findings from a study to co-produce a web-based implementation toolkit (WIT) that is accessible, usable and designed to support adaptive implementation across health and social care systems. Key themes relating to the process of co-production are outlined and the value of using co-production in implementation processes are discussed. Methods: A web-based survey (n = 36) was conducted with a range of stakeholders across health and social care. Findings identified a need for WIT. Survey respondents were invited to express interest in becoming part of a co-production group and to take part in three online interactive workshops to co-produce WIT. Workshops took place with the group (n = 12) and focused on key developmental stages of WIT. Results: Online co-production workshops were integral to the development and refinement of WIT. Benefits of using this process identified three interrelated themes: (i) Co-designing key features of the toolkit, (ii) Co-producing a toolkit with utility for users across health and social care settings, (iii) Co-producing a toolkit to support the implementation journey. Our approach of undertaking co-production as a dialogic process enabled generation of these themes. To illuminate discussion of these themes we draw upon iterative co-development of the "active ingredients" of key components (e.g., interactive Implementation Wheel) and functions (e.g., interactive "pop-up" definitions of keyword) and features (e.g., case studies) of WIT. Conclusion: Using a co-production approach with a range of end-users across health and social care systems, highlights the benefits of understanding implementation processes for users in these settings. User-centred design and processes for ensuring accessibility readily support the translation of implementation into rapidly changing health and social care systems to benefit outcomes for patients, their families, carers, service users and practitioners.

Measurements of ultrasonic deterrents and an acoustically branded hairdryer: Ambiguities in guideline compliance.

Acoustic radiation from three commercial pest deterrents and two hair dryers were measured in an anechoic chamber. The deterrents were chosen because the frequency range at which they emit the most energy is either in the very high-frequency sound band (11.2-17.8 kHz) or the ultrasound band (greater than 17.8 kHz). These are sources that may be heard by a subset of the general population, with the young typically having better high frequency sensitivity. A hairdryer reported to increase the frequency of the motor noise above the audible hearing range was compared with a standard hairdryer. The outputs of the deterrents are compared against six international regulations and guidelines for audible and ultrasound exposure. Multiple ambiguities in the application of these guidelines are discussed. These ambiguities could lead to a device being considered as in compliance despite unconventionally high levels. Even if a device measured here meets a guideline, actual exposures can exceed those taken here and may therefore breach guidelines if the listener is closer to the device or reflections increase the exposure level.

Public exposure to ultrasound and very high-frequency sound in air.

Recent work showing the presence of a new generation of ultrasound (US) sources in public places has reopened the debate about whether there are adverse effects of US on humans, and has identified weaknesses in standards and exposure guidelines. Systems that rely on very high-frequency sound (VHFS) and US include public-address voice-alarm (PAVA) systems (whose operational status is often monitored using tones at ∼20 kHz) and pest deterrents. In this study, sound pressure levels (SPLs) produced by 16 sources that were either publically available or installed in busy public spaces were measured. These sources were identified through a citizen science project, wherein members of the public were asked to provide smartphone recordings of VHFS/US sources. With measurements made in realistic listening positions, pest deterrents were found that produced levels of up to 100 dB SPL at ∼20 kHz, and a hand dryer was found to produce 84 dB SPL at 40 kHz. PAVA systems were found to emit lower levels of up to 76 dB SPL at ∼20 kHz. Pest deterrents measured breach recommended safe listening limits for public exposure for people who are nearby even for relatively short periods.

Effects of very high-frequency sound and ultrasound on humans. Part II: A double-blind randomized provocation study of inaudible 20-kHz ultrasound.

Some people have reported symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, and headaches that they attribute to ultrasound (US) emitted by devices in public places. The primary aim of the present study was to investigate whether inaudible US can provoke adverse symptoms compared to a sham presentation, under double-blind conditions. A second aim was to investigate whether the expectation of US being present could provoke adverse symptoms (a nocebo response). The US stimulus was a 20 kHz tone presented continuously for 20 min set to at least 15 dB below the participants' detection threshold, giving a typical sound pressure level (SPL) of 84 dB. No evidence that US provoked symptoms was found, but there was evidence of small nocebo effects. A case study on an individual with high self-reported sensitivity to US gave similar results. The present study did not reproduce the severe symptoms reported previously by some members of the public; this may be due to the SPL or duration of the stimulus, or strength of the nocebo stimulus. These findings cannot be used to predict outcomes from exposures to sounds that are audible to the individual in question, or to sounds with higher SPLs, longer durations, or different frequency content.

Effects of very high-frequency sound and ultrasound on humans. Part I: Adverse symptoms after exposure to audible very-high frequency sound.

Various adverse symptoms resulting from exposure to very high-frequency sound (VHFS) and ultrasound (US) have previously been reported. This study aimed to establish whether these symptoms are experienced under controlled laboratory conditions and are specific to VHFS/US. To do this, participants were exposed to VHFS/US (at frequencies between 13.5 and 20 kHz and sound pressure levels between 82 and 92 dB) and to a 1 kHz reference stimulus, both at 25 dB above their hearing threshold. The VHFS/US and reference stimuli were presented 4 times, each time for 3 min, during which participants performed a sustained attention task, rated their symptom severity, and had their galvanic skin response (GSR) measured to assess their level of anxiety. Prior to exposure, participants were assigned either to a symptomatic or an asymptomatic group, based on their prior history of symptoms that they attributed to VHFS/US. In both groups, overall discomfort ratings were higher in the VHFS/US condition than the reference condition. In the symptomatic group only, difficulty concentrating and annoyance were also rated higher in the VHFS/US than the reference condition. No difference between the two stimulus conditions was seen in performance on the attention task or on average GSRs for either group.