RESUMO
ObjectiveTo gain a better understanding of decisions around adherence to self-isolation advice during the first phase of the COVID-19 response in England. DesignA mixed-methods cross sectional study. Setting: EnglandParticipants 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). ResultsOf 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. ConclusionsMeasures 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. Strengths and limitations of this studyO_LIOur participants were contacted directly by Public Health England during the first three months of the pandemic - the only cohort of cases and contacts who experienced self-isolation during this early phase of the pandemic. C_LIO_LIResults may not be directly generalisable to wider populations or later phases of pandemic response. C_LIO_LIWe classified reasons for leaving the home as higher or lower contact, as a proxy for potential risk of transmission, however further research published since we conducted our research as refined our understanding of transmission risk, highlighting the need for more in-depth research on adherence behaviour and transmission risk. C_LIO_LIThe mixed methods approach combined quantitative measures of adherence with an exploration of how and why these decisions were being made in the same people. C_LIO_LIOur study provides unique insights into self-isolation during the earliest stages of the pandemic, against a background of uncertainty and lack of information that will recur, inevitably, in the face of future pandemic and similar threats. C_LI
RESUMO
ObjectiveExplore 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. DesignMixed-methods study; structured survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews. SettingCommunities served by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group. Participants204 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). ResultsReceipt 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 on the PHQ-9 questionnaire indicating possible depression and 15% scored [≥]10 on the GAD-7 questionnaire indicating possible anxiety. ConclusionsThis 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. O_TEXTBOXStrengths and limitations of this study O_LIThe mixed-methods study examines the experiences of clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) people at the height of the COVID-19 crisis, immediately after the first lockdown in England. C_LIO_LIThe use of an existing list of individuals identified as needing to "shield" from Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) allowed for access to key patient groups at the height of the crisis. C_LIO_LIFindings may not be applicable to wider CEV populations due to demographic bias. C_LI C_TEXTBOX
RESUMO
BackgroundThe 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. MethodsSemi-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). ResultsA 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. ConclusionParticipants 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.
RESUMO
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.