How did communities in North West England respond to the COVID-19 lockdown? Findings from a diary study.

OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government and public health leaders advocated for community level responses to support vulnerable people. This activity could be planned and co-ordinated, however much was informal and developed organically. The effects on the individuals who were involved in providing and receiving informal support and implications for their communities have not been widely explored. The aim of this study was therefore to document and explore the nature, potential effects and longevity of community responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: We asked 15 individuals in North West England to keep a diary during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown. Over 8 weeks, diaries were completed and supported with weekly calls with researchers. A community capacity building framework was used to explore reported community responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Diarists described community characteristics that enabled and hindered helpful responses in the lockdown context. Diarists frequently described informal approaches with residents acting alone or with near neighbours, although there were examples of community networks and residents recommencing formal volunteering activities. Diarists reported communities providing practical help and social support to vulnerable people. Participants perceived a greater sense of community, increased contact between residents and new networks during the period covered. CONCLUSION: The diaries provided valuable insights and the framework was a useful tool to explore the COVID-19 lockdown context. The findings indicate that organic capacity building took place, primarily via individual agency, highlighting the risk of communities being 'left behind' if there were not individuals or community networks available with resources to plug gaps in organisational support. Recommendations to sustain helpful responses to the pandemic include further consideration of ongoing community mobilisation, empowerment and community control within the capacity building framework.

'A lot of small things make a difference'. Mental health and strategies of coping during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The social and economic consequences of COVID-19 have the potential to affect individuals and populations through different pathways (e.g., bereavement, loss of social interaction). OBJECTIVE: This study adopted a solicited diary method to understand how mental health was affected during England's first lockdown. We also considered the experiences of diary keeping during a pandemic from the perspective of public participants. METHODS: Fifteen adults older than 18 years of age were recruited from northwest England. Diarists completed semistructured online diaries for 8 weeks, which was combined with weekly calls. A focus group captured participants' experiences of diary keeping. FINDINGS: Four key factors influenced mental health, which fluctuated over time and in relation to diarists' situations. These concerned navigating virus risk, loss of social connections and control and constrictions of the domestic space. Diarists also enacted a range of strategies to cope with the pandemic. This included support from social networks, engagement with natural environments, establishing normality, finding meaning and taking affirmative action. CONCLUSION: Use of diary methods provided insights into the lived experiences of the early months of a global pandemic. As well as contributing evidence on its mental health effects, diarists' accounts illuminated considerable resourcefulness and strategies of coping with positive effects for well-being. While diary keeping can also have therapeutic benefits during adversity, ethical and practical issues need to be considered, which include the emotional nature of diary keeping. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were involved in interpretation of data as well as critiquing the overall diary method used in the study.

The longitudinal NIHR ARC North West Coast Household Health Survey: exploring health inequalities in disadvantaged communities.

BACKGROUND: The Household Health Survey (HHS) was developed to understand the socioeconomic determinants of mental and physical health, and health inequalities in health and social care. This paper aims to provide a detailed rationale of the development and implementation of the survey and explore socio-economic variations in physical and mental health and health care. METHODS: This comprehensive longitudinal public health survey was designed and piloted in a disadvantaged area of England, comprising questions on housing, physical health, mental health, lifestyle, social issues, environment, work, and finances. After piloting, the HHS was implemented across 28 neighbourhoods - 10 disadvantaged neighbourhoods for learning (NfLs), 10 disadvantaged comparator sites, and eight relatively advantaged areas, in 2015 and 2018. Participants were recruited via random sampling of households in pre-selected neighbourhoods based on their areas of deprivation. RESULTS: 7731 residents participated in Wave 1 (N = 4319) and 2 (n = 3412) of the survey, with 871 residents having participated in both. Mental health, physical health, employment, and housing quality were poorer in disadvantaged neighbourhoods than in relatively advantaged areas. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides important insights into socio-economic variations in physical and mental health, with findings having implications for improved care provision to enable residents from any geographical or socio-economic background to access suitable care.

The elephant in the room? Why spatial stigma does not receive the public health attention it deserves.

In the context of health inequalities, spatial stigma refers to the ways that areas experiencing socioeconomic inequalities become negatively portrayed and labelled in public, official and policy discourses. With respect to the body of research on social determinants of health and health inequalities, and attention accorded to this issue in policy or practice, spatial stigma remains significantly under-represented compared with other possible causal factors. We suggest three explanations contributing to this neglect. First, the lack of research into spatial stigma originates from a more limited public health focus on the symbolic meanings of places for health, compared to their physical and social dimensions. Second, lay involvement and evidence of lived experiences of health inequalities continues to be under-represented in public health decision-making. Finally, it is the case that public health organizations may also be contributing to negative area portrayals in their communications of health inequalities. There are growing examples of social action being taken by groups of residents to resist this stigma through the promotion of more positive portrayals of areas and communities. Greater public health attention to this issue as well is likely to result in health gains and aid the development of more effective health inequalities strategies.

HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA is reportedly more sensitive than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). The effectiveness of HPV testing in primary cervical screening was assessed in the ARTISTIC trial, which was done over two screening rounds approximately 3 years apart (2001-03 and 2004-07) by comparing liquid-based cytology (LBC) combined with HPV testing against LBC alone. METHODS: Women aged 20-64 years who were undergoing routine screening as part of the English National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme in Greater Manchester were randomly assigned (between July, 2001, and September, 2003) in a ratio of 3:1 to either combined LBC and HPV testing in which the results were revealed and acted on, or to combined LBC and HPV testing where the HPV result was concealed from the patient and investigator. The primary outcome was the detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in the second screening round, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN25417821. FINDINGS: There were 24 510 eligible women at entry (18 386 in the revealed group, 6124 in the concealed group). In the first round of screening 233 women (1.27%) in the revealed group had CIN3+, compared with 80 (1.31%) women in the concealed group (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.25; p>0.2). There was an unexpectedly large drop in the proportion of women with CIN3+ between the first and second rounds of screening in both groups, at 0.25% (29 of 11 676) in the revealed group and 0.47% (18 of 3866 women) in the concealed group (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.96; p=0.042). For both rounds combined, the proportion of women with CIN3+ were 1.51% (revealed) and 1.77% (concealed) (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.08; p>0.2). INTERPRETATION: LBC combined with HPV testing resulted in a significantly lower detection rate of CIN3+ in the second round of screening compared with LBC screening alone, but the effect was small. Over the two screening rounds combined, co-testing did not detect a higher rate of CIN3+ or CIN2+ than LBC alone. Potential changes in screening methodology should be assessed over at least two screening rounds. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.