Preferences for the Societal Impacts of a Pandemic when it Transitions into an Endemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: The stage of the pandemic significantly affects people's preferences for (the societal impacts of) COVID-19 policies. No discrete choice experiments were conducted when the COVID-19 pandemic was in a transition phase. OBJECTIVES: This is the first study to empirically investigate how citizens weigh the key societal impacts of pandemic policies when the COVID-19 pandemic transitions into an endemic. METHODS: We performed two discrete choice experiments among 2181 Dutch adults that included six attributes: COVID-19 deaths, physical health problems, mental health problems, financial problems, surgery delays and the degree to which individual liberties are restricted. We used latent class choice models to identify heterogeneous preferences for the impacts of COVID-19 measures across different groups of respondents. RESULTS: A large majority of the participants in this study was willing to accept deaths to avoid that citizens experience physical complaints, mental health issues, financial problems and the postponement of surgeries. The willingness to tolerate COVID-19 deaths to avoid these societal impacts differed substantially between participants. When participants were provided with information about the stringency of COVID-19 measures, they assigned relatively less value to preventing the postponement of non-urgent surgeries for 1-3 months across all classes. CONCLUSIONS: Having gone through a pandemic, most Dutch citizens clearly prefer pandemic policies that consider citizens' financial situations, physical problems, mental health problems and individual liberties, alongside the effects on excess mortality and pressure on healthcare.

Pilot randomized controlled trial of a program to enhance experience and adherence with adjuvant endocrine therapy among women with non-metastatic breast cancer: 12-month quantitative results.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) reduces recurrence risk after hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, but non-adherence is common. We pilot-tested SOIE, a program to enhance AET experience and adherence, to assess its acceptability, feasibility, and effects on psychosocial precursors of AET adherence. METHODS: We conducted a 12-month pilot randomized controlled trial among women who had a first AET prescription. Intervention group received SOIE while control group received usual care. Psychosocial factors from the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (intention - primary outcome -, attitude, subjective norm, behavioral control), additional constructs (AET knowledge, social support, coping planning), impact of AET services received, and adherence were measured by questionnaires at baseline, 3-month, and 12-month endpoints. Group patterns were compared using repeated measures analyses with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: A total of 106 women were randomized (participation = 54.9%; intervention n = 52; control n = 54; retention = 93.8%). Among SOIE women, ≥ 90% received the program components and were satisfied. Both groups scored high on adherence intentions and group patterns over time were not statistically different. In the intervention group, AET knowledge and coping planning with side effects increased (group-by-time p-value = .002 and .016), a higher proportion reported that AET services received helped them take their AET (p < .05) and have a consistent daily intake (p = .01). CONCLUSION: SOIE is feasible and acceptable for survivors with an AET. SOIE did not significantly impact adherence intentions but was beneficial for other program outcomes and daily intake. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: SOIE may represent an encouraging avenue to enhance supportive care and empower survivors with managing AET.

Estimating the impact of COVID-19 self-test availability and modifications in test-strategy on overall test uptake using an experimental vignette study.

To inform future Dutch COVID-19 testing policies we did an experimental vignette study to investigate whether inclusion of the less reliable lateral flow tests (self-tests) would change test-uptake sufficiently to improve population-level test sensitivity. A representative sample (n = 3,270) participated in a 2-by-2 online experiment to evaluate the effects of test-guidelines including self-testing advice (IV1), and the effects of self-test availability (IV2) on expected test uptake (PCR test, self-test or no test) and sensitivity of the overall test strategy (primary outcome). Across four scenarios, changing test advice did not affect expected testing behaviour. Self-test availability, however, increased the timeliness of testing, the number of people testing, and overall test strategy sensitivity. Based on these findings, we recommend that (national) policy facilitates a supply of self-tests at home, for example through free and pro-active distribution of test-kits during a pandemic. This could substantially enhance the chances of timely detecting and isolating patients.

Design of a Multiple-Behavior Change Intervention for Supporting Self-management in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: An Intervention Mapping Approach.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to medication and low physical activity contribute to morbidity, mortality, and decreased quality of life among patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Effective interventions that can be delivered during routine clinical care are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to adapt the feasible and cost-effective Adherence Improving self-Management Strategy (AIMS) for patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to CHF treatment. Subsequently, we determined its acceptability and feasibility. METHODS: Adherence Improving self-Management Strategy is a systematic, nurse-delivered counseling intervention blended with eHealth to facilitate patient self-management. We used the intervention mapping framework to systematically adapt AIMS-HIV to AIMS-CHF, while preserving essential intervention elements. Therefore, we systematically consulted the scientific literature, patients with CHF and nurses, and pretested intervention materials. RESULTS: Adherence Improving self-Management Strategy-HIV was modified to AIMS-CHF: a multiple-behavior change intervention, focused on medication adherence and physical activity. Key self-management determinants (such as attitudes, self-efficacy, and self-regulatory skills) and organization of care (such as specialized nurses delivering AIMS) were similar for HIV and heart failure care. The AIMS protocol, as well as material content and design, was systematically adapted to CHF. Preliminary testing suggests that AIMS-CHF is likely feasible and acceptable to patients with CHF and care providers. CONCLUSION: Using the intervention mapping protocol, AIMS-HIV could be systematically adapted to AIMS-CHF and seems acceptable and feasible. Evidence from the literature, behavioral theory, and input from nurses and patients were essential in this process. Adherence Improving self-Management Strategy-CHF should now be tested for feasibility and effectiveness in routine care.

Context Matters: Patterns in Physical Distancing Behavior Across Situations and Over Time During the Covid-19 Pandemic in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Physical distancing is an effective preventative measure during respiratory infectious disease outbreaks. Prior studies on distancing behaviors have largely ignored context characteristics (physical, social) and time. PURPOSE: We investigated patterns in physical distancing over time and across situations, as well as sociodemographic variation herein. METHODS: We employed data from five rounds of a cohort study conducted throughout the pandemic by the Dutch public health institute (RIVM; N ≈ 50.000 per round). We conducted Latent Class Analyses to investigate patterns of physical distancing in a range of situations, followed by regression models to investigate associations between distancing behavior and sociodemographic and context characteristics. RESULTS: Participants differed in their general tendency to adhere to distancing guidelines across situations, but there were also substantial differences in distancing behavior between situations, particularly at work, with friends and family and outdoors. Distancing at work was strongly associated with work environment characteristics. Younger age groups reported less distancing behavior, particularly with close relations (friends or family) and at work. In periods when the pandemic situation was most severe, people adhered more strongly to distancing guidelines and age differences were most pronounced during these periods. CONCLUSIONS: Physical and social context matters for physical distancing, highlighting the importance of developing strategies for pandemic preparedness that improve opportunities for physical distancing (e.g., reducing crowding, one-way traffic) and accommodate young people to safely meet even in times of high pandemic severity and lockdowns. Future studies should account for the physical and social context in which distancing behavior is observed.

Physical distancing helps reduce the transmission of infectious diseases, but people's opportunities and willingness to keep distance from others can vary between situations. In a survey conducted at various time points during the Covid-19 pandemic, The Dutch National Public Health Institute asked people about their distancing behavior in various such situations, such as at work, when grocery shopping or when visiting with friends and family. We found that people mainly differed in their general tendency to keep distance from others: some individuals were more likely to keep distance than others in all situations. However, there were also substantial differences in distancing behavior at work, with friends and family and outdoors. Differences in distancing at work resulted from the specific work context and activities people had to perform. Younger age groups reported less distancing behavior in social situations such as when meeting with friends and family or with colleagues. In periods when the pandemic situation was most severe, people were more likely to keep their distance from others and there were larger age differences in distancing behavior. These results highlight the importance of improving people's opportunities to keep their distance from others and safely meet in times of a severe pandemic.

Tailoring CONSORT-SPI to improve the reporting of smoking cessation intervention trials: An expert consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inadequate reporting of smoking cessation intervention trials is common and leads to significant challenges for researchers. The aim of this study was to tailor CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials)-SPI (Social and Psychological Interventions) guidelines to improve reporting of trials of behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation. METHOD: Informed by missing data from the IC-SMOKE (Intervention and Comparison group support provided in SMOKing cEssation) systematic review project, this study used a multi-stage Delphi process to examine which items could be added or modified to improve the reporting of smoking cessation trials. The first stage involved an on-line survey of 17 international experts in smoking cessation and trial methodology voting on the importance of items for inclusion in the updated guidelines. This was followed by a face-to-face expert consensus meeting attended by 15 of these experts, where the final inclusion and exclusion of new items and modifications were agreed upon. A nine-point Likert scale was used to establish consensus, with suggested modifications requiring agreement of 75% or more. Disagreements in the first stage were presented again at the second stage for discussion and a second round of voting. Only items which reached the threshold for agreement were included. RESULTS: The experts agreed on the inclusion of 10 new items and the specification of 12 existing items. This included modifications that could apply to trials more widely (e.g. the rationale for the comparator), but also modifications that were very specific to smoking cessation trials (e.g. the reporting of smoking cessation outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: A Delphi study has developed a modified CONSORT-SPI guideline (CONSORT-SPI-SMOKE) to improve the reporting of trials of behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation.

Effectiveness of a COVID-19 contact tracing app in a simulation model with indirect and informal contact tracing.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, contact tracing was used to identify individuals who had been in contact with a confirmed case so that these contacted individuals could be tested and quarantined to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Many countries developed mobile apps to find these contacted individuals faster. We evaluate the epidemiological effectiveness of the Dutch app CoronaMelder, where we measure effectiveness as the reduction of the reproduction number R. To this end, we use a simulation model of SARS-CoV-2 spread and contact tracing, informed by data collected during the study period (December 2020 - March 2021) in the Netherlands. We show that the tracing app caused a clear but small reduction of the reproduction number, and the magnitude of the effect was found to be robust in sensitivity analyses. The app could have been more effective if more people had used it, and if notification of contacts could have been done directly by the user and thus reducing the time intervals between symptom onset and reporting of contacts. The model has two innovative aspects: i) it accounts for the clustered nature of social networks and ii) cases can alert their contacts informally without involvement of health authorities or the tracing app.

Mental health of healthcare workers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: a longitudinal study.

Purpose: In March 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Previous virus outbreaks, such as the SARS outbreak in 2003, appeared to have a great impact on the mental health of healthcare workers. The aim of this study is to examine to what extent mental health of healthcare workers differed from non-healthcare workers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We used data from a large-scale longitudinal online survey conducted by the Corona Behavioral Unit in the Netherlands. Eleven measurement rounds were analyzed, from April 2020 to March 2021 (N = 16,615; number of observations = 64,206). Mental health, as measured by the 5-item Mental Health Inventory, was compared between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers over time, by performing linear GEE-analyses. Results: Mental health scores were higher among healthcare workers compared to non-healthcare workers during the first year of the pandemic (1.29 on a 0-100 scale, 95%-CI = 0.75-1.84). During peak periods of the pandemic, with over 100 hospital admissions or over 25 ICU admissions per day and subsequently more restrictive measures, mental health scores were observed to be lower in both healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Conclusion: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed no relevant difference in mental health between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers in the Netherlands. To be better prepared for another pandemic, future research should investigate which factors hinder and which factors support healthcare workers to maintain a good mental health.

How well do surveys on adherence to pandemic policies assess actual behaviour: Measurement properties of the Dutch COVID-19 adherence to prevention advice survey (CAPAS).

BACKGROUND: Survey data on adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures have often been used to inform policy makers and public health professionals. Although behavioural survey data are often considered to suffer from biases, there is a lack of studies critically examining the validity, reliability and responsiveness of population-survey data on behaviour throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. AIM: We studied the measurement properties of the COVID-19 Adherence to Prevention Advice Survey (CAPAS), a novel questionnaire implemented in a repeated cross-sectional (i.e., 'Trend') Study and a Cohort Study in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The CAPAS is a novel questionnaire developed in March 2020, with the aim to assess social activity and adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures. Items were formulated to minimise social desirability and aid memory retrieval. Based on the COSMIN framework, we selected the most suitable test for each behavioural question. We investigated criterion validity of vaccination, testing behaviour and mobility by comparing (aggregate) trends of self-reported behaviour to trends in objective data. Responsiveness of mobility and ventilation behaviour was assessed by studying whether self-reported behaviour changed following contextual (e.g., policy) changes. Test-retest reliability of hygienic behaviour, wearing face masks, ventilation behaviour and social distancing was examined during a period in which the context was stable. RESULTS: Overall, aggregate trends in self-reported behaviour closely corresponded to trends in external objective data. Self-reported behaviours were responsive to contextual changes and test-retest reliabilities were adequate. For infrequent behaviours reliability improved when measures were dichotomised. We were able to examine national representativeness for vaccination, which suggested a modest overestimation of on average 3.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the suitability of using carefully designed, self-reported surveys (and the CAPAS specifically) to study changes in protective behaviours in a dynamic context.

Signalling need for care: a neglected functional role of medical treatment.

Background and Objectives: While the primary goals of medical treatment are typically to shorten illness or relieve symptoms, we explore the idea that an important additional goal for some patients is to communicate their needs. Drawing on signalling theory, we argue that undergoing treatments can help patients legitimize their illness and thereby enable access to crucial support during convalescence. Methods and Results: Four pre-registered within-subjects experiments (n = 874) show that participants are more inclined to provide care to people who undergo treatment, especially when that treatment is painful. Results show this incentivizes the use of antibiotic treatments for viral infections as well as drug treatments for mental illness. A cross-sectional study of 194 chronic pain patients shows that those who experience stigma and doubt over the legitimacy of their illness are more likely to accept aversive treatments. Furthermore, two experiments (n = 653) indicate that subtle manipulations of one's sense of social support may increase willingness to accept treatment. Conclusions and Implications: These results indicate that people make decisions to provide care in part based on the presence or absence of treatment and furthermore that patients' treatment decision-making is informed by the social consequences of their choices. Signalling theory may help explain the surprising longevity of some ineffective and costly medical procedures.

General Mental Health, Loneliness, and Life Satisfaction in the Context of COVID-19 Policies: A 2-Year Cohort Study in the Netherlands, April 2020-January 2022.

OBJECTIVE: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has affected mental health, understanding who has been affected most and why is incomplete. We sought to understand changes in mental health in the context of transmission numbers and pandemic (social) restrictions and whether changes in mental health varied among population groups. METHODS: We analyzed data from 92 062 people (aged ≥16 years and able to read Dutch) who participated in the Corona Behavioral Unit cohort study at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, the Netherlands, from April 17, 2020, through January 25, 2022. Participants self-reported mental well-being through multiple rounds of surveys. We used a multivariable linear mixed-effects model to analyze loneliness, general mental health, and life satisfaction. RESULTS: As strictness of pandemic prevention measures and social restrictions increased, people's feelings of loneliness increased and mental health and life satisfaction decreased. As restrictions were relaxed, loneliness decreased and general mental health improved. Younger people (aged 16-24 y) versus older people (aged ≥40 y), people with low (vs high) education levels, and people living alone (vs living together) were more likely to have negative well-being outcomes. We observed that trajectories over time differed considerably only by age, with participants aged 16-24 years affected substantially more than participants aged ≥40 years by pandemic social restrictions. These patterns were consistent across multiple waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the social restrictions imposed by the Dutch government during the study period were associated with reduced mental well-being, especially among younger people. However, people appeared resilient as they recovered during periods when restrictions were relaxed. Monitoring and supporting well-being, in particular to reduce loneliness, may help younger people during periods of intense social restrictions.

Cohort profile: The Corona Behavioral Unit cohort, a longitudinal mixed-methods study on COVID-19-related behavior, well-being and policy support in the Netherlands.

This 'cohort profile' aims to provide a description of the study design, methodology, and baseline characteristics of the participants in the Corona Behavioral Unit cohort. This cohort was established in response to the COVID-19 pandemic by the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and the regional public health services. The aim was to investigate adherence of and support for COVID-19 prevention measures, psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 behaviors, well-being, COVID-19 vaccination, and media use. The cohort also examined specific motivations and beliefs, such as for vaccination, which were collected through either closed-ended items or open text responses. In April 2020, 89,943 participants aged 16 years and older were recruited from existing nation-wide panels. Between May 2020 and September 2022, 99,676 additional participants were recruited through online social media platforms and mailing lists of higher education organizations. Participants who consented were initially invited every three weeks (5 rounds), then every six weeks (13 rounds), and since the summer of 2022 every 12 weeks (3 rounds). To date, 66% of participants were female, 30% were 39 years and younger, and 54% completed two or more questionnaires, with an average of 9.2 (SD = 5.7) questionnaires. The Corona Behavioral Unit COVID-19 cohort has published detailed insights into longitudinal patterns of COVID-19 related behaviors, support of COVID-19 preventive measures, as well as peoples' mental wellbeing in relation to the stringency of these measures. The results have informed COVID-19 policy making and pandemic communication in the Netherlands throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The cohort data will continuously be used to examine COVID-19 related outcomes for scientific analyses, as well as to inform future pandemic preparedness plans.

Estimating the true effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions under variable comparator conditions: A systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Behavioural smoking cessation trials have used comparators that vary considerably between trials. Although some previous meta-analyses made attempts to account for variability in comparators, these relied on subsets of trials and incomplete data on comparators. This study aimed to estimate the relative effectiveness of (individual) smoking cessation interventions while accounting for variability in comparators using comprehensive data on experimental and comparator interventions. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-regression was conducted including 172 randomised controlled trials with at least 6 months follow-up and biochemically verified smoking cessation. Authors were contacted to obtain unpublished information. This information was coded in terms of active content and attributes of the study population and methods. Meta-regression was used to create a model predicting smoking cessation outcomes. This model was used to re-estimate intervention effects, as if all interventions have been evaluated against the same comparators. Outcome measures included log odds of smoking cessation for the meta-regression models and smoking cessation differences and ratios to compare relative effectiveness. RESULTS: The meta-regression model predicted smoking cessation rates well (pseudo R2 = 0.44). Standardising the comparator had substantial impact on conclusions regarding the (relative) effectiveness of trials and types of intervention. Compared with a 'no support comparator', self-help was 1.33 times (95% CI = 1.16-1.49), brief physician advice 1.61 times (95% CI = 1.31-1.90), nurse individual counselling 1.76 times (95% CI = 1.62-1.90), psychologist individual counselling 2.04 times (95% CI = 1.95-2.15) and group psychologist interventions 2.06 times (95% CI = 1.92-2.20) more effective. Notably, more elaborate experimental interventions (e.g. psychologist counselling) were typically compared with more elaborate comparators, masking their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Comparator variability and underreporting of comparators obscures the interpretation, comparison and generalisability of behavioural smoking cessation trials. Comparator variability should, therefore, be taken into account when interpreting and synthesising evidence from trials. Otherwise, policymakers, practitioners and researchers may draw incorrect conclusions about the (cost) effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions and their constituent components.

Understanding public support for COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures over time: Does it wear out?

Background: COVID-19 mitigation measures intend to protect public health, but their adverse psychological, social, and economic effects weaken public support. Less favorable trade-offs may especially weaken support for more restrictive measures. Support for mitigation measures may also differ between population subgroups who experience different benefits and costs, and decrease over time, a phenomenon termed "pandemic fatigue." Methods: We examined self-reported support for COVID-19 mitigation measures in the Netherlands over 12 consecutives waves of data collection between April 2020 and May 2021 in an open population cohort study. Participants were recruited through community panels of the 25 regional public health services, and through links to the online surveys advertised on social media. The 54,010 unique participants in the cohort study on average participated in 4 waves of data collection. Most participants were female (65%), middle-aged [57% (40-69 years)], highly educated (57%), not living alone (84%), residing in an urban area (60%), and born in the Netherlands (95%). Results: COVID-19 mitigation measures implemented in the Netherlands remained generally well-supported over time [all scores >3 on 5-point scale ranging 1 (low)-5 (high)]. During the whole period studied, support was highest for personal hygiene measures, quarantine and wearing face masks, high but somewhat lower for not shaking hands, testing and self-isolation, and restricting social contacts, and lowest for limiting visitors at home, and not traveling abroad. Women and higher educated people were more supportive of some mitigation measures than men and lower educated people. Older people were more supportive of more restrictive measures than younger people, and support for more socially restrictive measures decreased most over time in higher educated people or in younger people. Conclusions: This study found no support for pandemic fatigue in terms of a gradual decline in support for all mitigation measures in the first year of the pandemic. Rather, findings suggest that support for mitigation measures reflects a balancing of benefits and cost, which may change over time, and differ between measures and population subgroups.

Psychometric Properties of an Adapted Stigma Scale and Experiences of Stigma Associated with HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Use Among Men Who have Sex with Men: A Mixed Methods Study.

Stigma may influence the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). However, there is an absence of robust measures for PrEP-related stigma. We describe an adaptation of a HIV stigma scale for use in PrEP users and experiences of PrEP users in Wales (UK) with regards to PrEP-related stigma. A mixed methods study was conducted where PrEP users completed questionnaire items about PrEP-related stigma and a subset were interviewed about their experiences of taking PrEP. We adapted items from the HIV stigma scale and assessed construct validity and internal consistency. We analysed interview data using a framework approach, with themes focussing on enacted and anticipated stigma in order to identify areas for scale refinement. Our measure had good psychometric properties but additional items may be useful (e.g. specific instances of enacted stigma, concerns around homonegativity). Further work is needed to develop this scale and validate it in a larger sample.

Between- and Within-Individual Sociodemographic and Psychological Determinants of PrEP Adherence Among Men Who have Sex with Men Prescribed a Daily PrEP Regimen in Wales.

We investigated the determinants of daily PrEP use and coverage of condomless anal sex (CAS) by PrEP among men who have sex with men in Wales, UK. We measured PrEP use by electronic monitors and CAS by secure online surveys. We defined PrEP use based on daily medication cap openings and coverage as CAS episodes preceded by ≥ 3 days of PrEP use and followed by ≥ 2 days of PrEP use. We included 57 participants (5463 observations). An STI diagnosis was associated with lower PrEP use but also lower PrEP coverage. Older adults had higher PrEP use. A belief that other PrEP users took PrEP as prescribed was associated with lower PrEP coverage. An STI diagnosis is an important cue for an intervention, reflecting episodes of high-risk sexual behaviour and low PrEP coverage. Other results provide a basis for the development of an evidence-informed intervention for promoting coverage of PrEP.

Public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of community organisations and networks in the Netherlands (2020-2021): five lessons for pandemic decision-making.

BackgroundDuring the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, key persons who were formally or informally active in community organisations and networks, such as sports clubs or cultural, educational, day care and healthcare facilities, occupied a key position between governments and citizens. However, their experiences, the dilemmas they faced and the solutions they generated when implementing COVID-19 measures in their respective settings are understudied.AimWe aimed to understand how key persons in different community organisations and networks experienced and responded to the COVID-19 measures in the Netherlands.MethodsBetween October 2020 and December 2021, the Corona Behavioural Unit at the Dutch national public health institute, conducted qualitative research based on narratives derived from 65 in-depth interviews with 95 key persons from 32 organisations and networks in eight different sectors.ResultsFirstly, key persons enhanced adherence and supported the resilience and well-being of people involved in their settings. Secondly, adherence was negatively affected where COVID-19 measures conflicted with important organisational goals and values. Thirdly, small changes and ambiguities in COVID-19 policy had substantial consequences, depending on the context. Fourthly, problem-solving was achieved through trial-and-error, peer support, co-creation and transparent communication. Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic and measures highlighted inequalities in access to resources.ConclusionPandemic preparedness requires organisational and community preparedness and a multidisciplinary public health approach. Structural engagement of governments with key persons in community organisations and networks is key to enhance public trust and adherence to pandemic measures and contributes to health equity and the well-being of the people involved.

Systematic adaptation of the adherence improving self-management strategy to support breast cancer survivors' adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy: An intervention mapping approach.

OBJECTIVE: Non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for breast cancer leads to increased recurrence and mortality risk and healthcare costs. Evidence on feasible, effective AET adherence interventions is scarce. This paper describes the systematic adaptation of the cost-effective adherence improving self-management strategy (AIMS) for patients with HIV to AET for women after breast cancer treatment. METHODS: We followed the intervention mapping protocol for adapting interventions by conducting a needs assessment, reviewing target behaviours and determinants, reassessing behaviour change methods and adapting programme content. Therefore, we performed a literature review, consulted behavioural theory and organised nine advisory board meetings with patients and healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Non-adherence occurs frequently among AET users. Compared to HIV treatment, AET is less effective, and AET side effects are more burdensome. This drives AET treatment discontinuation. However, the key determinants of non-adherence are largely similar to HIV treatment (e.g. motivation, self-regulation and patient-provider relationship); therefore, most strategies in AIMS-HIV also seem suitable for AIMS-AET. Modifications were required, however, regarding supporting patients with coping with side effects and sustaining treatment motivation. CONCLUSION: AIMS seems to be a suitable framework for adherence self-management across conditions and treatments. Intervention mapping offered a transparent, systematic approach to adapting AIMS-HIV to AET.

Stepping into the shoes of the policy maker: Results of a Participatory Value Evaluation for the Dutch long term COVID-19 strategy.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak early 2020 was followed by an unprecedented package of measures. The relative calmness of the pandemic early 2022 provides a momentum to prepare for various scenarios. OBJECTIVES: As acceptance of COVID-19 measures is key for public support we investigated citizens' preferences towards imposing measures in four scenarios: 1) spring/summer scenario with few hospitalizations; 2) autumn/winter scenario with many hospitalizations; 3) a new contagious variant, the impact on hospitalizations is unclear; 4) a new contagious variant, hospitalizations will substantially increase. METHODS: Study 1 comprised a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) in which 2011 respondents advised their government on which measures to impose in the four scenarios. Respondents received information regarding the impact of each measure on the risk that the health system would be overloaded. To triangulate the results, 2958 respondents in Study 2 evaluated the acceptability of the measures in each scenario. RESULTS: Measures were ranked similarly by respondents in Study 1 and 2: 1) the majority of respondents thought that hygiene measures should be upheld, even in the spring/summer; 2) the majority supported booster vaccination, working from home, encouraging self-testing, and mandatory face masks from scenario 2 onwards; 3) even in scenario 4, lockdown measures were not supported by the majority. Young respondents were willing to accept more risks for the health system than older respondents. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that policies that focus on prevention (through advising low-impact hygiene measures) and early response to moderate threats (by scaling up to moderately restrictive measures and boostering) can count on substantial support. There is low support for lockdown measures even under high-risk conditions, which further emphasizes the importance of prevention and a timely response to new threats. Our results imply that young citizens' concerns, in particular, should be addressed when restrictive COVID-19 measures are to be implemented.

Physical Distancing and Social Media Use in Emerging Adults and Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Large-scale Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Survey Study.

Background: Although emerging adults play a role in the spread of COVID-19, they are less likely to develop severe symptoms after infection. Emerging adults' relatively high use of social media as a source of information raises concerns regarding COVID-19-related behavioral compliance (ie, physical distancing) in this age group. Objective: This study aimed to investigate physical distancing among emerging adults in comparison with adults and examine the role of using social media for COVID-19 news and information in this regard. In addition, this study explored the relationship between physical distancing and using different social media platforms and sources. Methods: The secondary data of a large-scale longitudinal national survey (N=123,848) between April and November 2020 were used. Participants indicated, ranging from 1 to 8 waves, how often they were successful in keeping a 1.5-m distance on a 7-point Likert scale. Participants aged between 18 and 24 years were considered emerging adults, and those aged >24 years were considered adults. In addition, a dummy variable was created to indicate per wave whether participants used social media for COVID-19 news and information. A subset of participants received follow-up questions to determine which platforms they used and what sources of news and information they had seen on social media. All preregistered hypotheses were tested with linear mixed-effects models and random intercept cross-lagged panel models. Results: Emerging adults reported fewer physical distancing behaviors than adults (ß=-.08, t86,213.83=-26.79; P<.001). Moreover, emerging adults were more likely to use social media for COVID-19 news and information (b=2.48; odds ratio 11.93 [95% CI=9.72-14.65]; SE 0.11; Wald=23.66; P<.001), which mediated the association with physical distancing but only to a small extent (indirect effect: b=-0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.02). Contrary to our hypothesis, the longitudinal random intercept cross-lagged panel model showed no evidence that physical distancing was not influenced by social media use in the previous wave. However, evidence indicated that social media use affects subsequent physical distancing behavior. Moreover, additional analyses showed that the use of most social media platforms (ie, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram) and interpersonal communication were negatively associated with physical distancing, whereas other platforms (ie, LinkedIn and Twitter) and government messages had no or small positive associations with physical distancing. Conclusions: In conclusion, we should be vigilant with regard to the physical distancing of emerging adults, but the study results did not indicate concerns regarding the role of social media for COVID-19 news and information. However, as the use of some social media platforms and sources showed negative associations with physical distancing, future studies should more carefully examine these factors to better understand the associations between social media use for news and information and behavioral interventions in times of crisis.