Search

Background: Community-based volunteering supports outbreak management by extending reach into at-risk communities. This paper examines the application of a 'community champions' model in England, UK, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence pre-pandemic shows that community champion interventions tap into social networks to strengthen connections with disadvantaged communities. During the pandemic, the UK government set up a COVID community champions funding award scheme for local authorities to develop local programmes that addressed emerging inequalities. The study aim was to identify transferable learning on community engagement in the pandemic by undertaking a secondary qualitative synthesis of practice-based case studies of local COVID community champion programmes. Methods: A systematic staged approach for synthesis of practice-based case studies was used. In total, 16 COVID community champion case studies, which were written by practitioners involved in local programme implementation and published by the Local Government Association, were included. Case studies covered aims, programme development and delivery, examples of activities and a discussion of learning. Framework qualitative analysis methods were used to code and organise data prior to cross case analysis. The final stage produced an overarching thematic framework that best represented descriptive and interpretive themes. Results: The results provide an overview of common features of COVID community champion programmes and emergent learning. All local programmes aimed to reduce health inequalities by involving at-risk communities in local prevention efforts, adapting the approach to local priorities. Two levels of community engagement were volunteer mobilisation and subsequent community-based outreach activities. Elements of capacity building, such as training and creation of networks, were common. The synthesis of practice-based learning found that stronger relationships with communities were regarded as a key mechanism to support more equitable prevention strategies. Other learning themes related to champion roles, community engagement strategies and programme implementation. Conclusions: By focusing on how community champion approaches were applied by local authorities in England during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study contributes to knowledge on volunteer mobilisation as a mechanism to improve public health communication and outreach. Notwithstanding the limitations of experiential evidence, the synthesis of practice-based learning highlights potentially transferable community engagement strategies for health protection and health improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the operations and functionality of the public transport sector in the UK. This paper reflects on the experience of this sector through the pandemic period, and considers recommendations for any future mitigations required for either new COVID-19 waves or a different public health emergency. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with public transport experts, organisational leaders, workers and passengers in two phases: Phase 1 from January to May 2021, and Phase 2 from December 2021 to February 2022. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results: Using the 'What? So What? Now What?' reflective model, ideas are drawn out to describe (a) what changes occurred, (b) what effects these changes had on service provision as well as perceptions of risk and mitigation and (c) what lessons have been learned and how these findings can feed into pandemic preparedness for the future. Respondent reflections focussed on the importance of communication, leadership, and maintaining compliance. Conclusions: The wealth of experience gained through the COVID-19 pandemic in the public transport sector is extremely valuable. Through reflection on this experience, specific recommendations are made relating to these factors, covering: maintaining links across industry, access to information and data, understanding of mitigation effectiveness, improving messaging, challenges of behavioural mitigations, and clear lines of accountability. The recommendations made on the basis of this reflective process will help to improve public health strategy within the public transport sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Researchers conducting cohort studies may wish to investigate the effect of episodes of COVID-19 illness on participants. A definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 is not always available, so studies have to rely on proxy indicators. This paper seeks to contribute evidence that may assist the use and interpretation of these COVID-indicators.Methods: We described five potential COVID-indicators: self-reported core symptoms, a symptom algorithm; self-reported suspicion of COVID-19; self-reported external results; and home antibody testing based on a 'lateral flow' antibody (IgG/IgM) test cassette. Included were staff and postgraduate research students at a large London university who volunteered for the study and were living in the UK in June 2020. Excluded were those who did not return a valid antibody test result. We provide descriptive statistics of prevalence and overlap of the five indicators.Results: Core symptoms were the most common COVID-indicator (770/1882 participants positive, 41%), followed by suspicion of COVID-19 (n = 509/1882, 27%), a positive symptom algorithm (n = 298/1882, 16%), study antibody lateral flow positive (n = 124/1882, 7%) and a positive external test result (n = 39/1882, 2%), thus a 20-fold difference between least and most common. Meeting any one indicator increased the likelihood of all others, with concordance between 65 and 94%. Report of a low suspicion of having had COVID-19 predicted a negative antibody test in 98%, but positive suspicion predicted a positive antibody test in only 20%. Those who reported previous external antibody tests were more likely to have received a positive result from the external test (24%) than the study test (15%).Conclusions: Our results support the use of proxy indicators of past COVID-19, with the caveat that none is perfect. Differences from previous antibody studies, most significantly in lower proportions of participants positive for antibodies, may be partly due to a decline in antibody detection over time. Subsequent to our study, vaccination may have further complicated the interpretation of COVID-indicators, only strengthening the need to critically evaluate what criteria should be used to define COVID-19 cases when designing studies and interpreting study results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]