Search

Introduction: A range of nonpharmaceutical public health interventions has been introduced in many countries following the rapid spread of Covid‐19 since 2020, including recommendations or mandates for the use of face masks or coverings in the community. While the effectiveness of face masks in reducing Covid‐19 transmission has been extensively discussed, scant attention has been paid to the lived experience of those wearing face masks. Method: Drawing on 40 narrative interviews with a purposive sample of people in the United Kingdom, with a particular focus on marginalised and minoritized groups, our paper explores experiences of face mask use during the pandemic. Results: We find that face masks have a range of societal, health and safety impacts, and prompted positive and negative emotional responses for users. We map our findings onto Lorenc and Oliver's framework for intervention risks. We suggest that qualitative data offer particular insights into the experiences of public health interventions, allowing the potential downsides and risks of interventions to be more fully considered and informing public health policies that might avoid inadvertent harm, particularly towards marginalised groups. Patient or Public Contribution: The study primarily involved members of the public in the conduct of the research, namely through participation in interviews (email and telephone). The conception for the study involved extensive discussions on social media with a range of people, and we received input and ideas from presentations we delivered on the preliminary analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the 2020 COVID‐19 pandemic, one of the key components of many countries' strategies to reduce the spread of the virus is contact tracing. Objective: To explore public attitudes to a COVID‐19 contact tracing app in the United Kingdom. Setting: Online video‐conferencing. Participants: 27 participants, UK residents aged 18 years and older. Methods: Qualitative study consisting of six focus groups carried out between 1st‐12th May, 2020 (39‐50 days into the UK 'lockdown'). Results: Participants were divided as to whether or not they felt they would use the app. Analysis revealed five themes: (1) lack of information and misconceptions surrounding COVID‐19 contact tracing apps; (2) concerns over privacy; (3) concerns over stigma; (4)concerns over uptake; and (5) contact tracing as the 'greater good'. Concerns over privacy, uptake and stigma were particularly significant amongst those stated they will not be using the app, and the view that the app is for the 'greater good' was particularly significant amongst those who stated they will be using the app. One of the most common misconceptions about the app was that it could allow users to specifically identify and map COVID‐19 cases amongst their contacts and in their vicinity. Conclusions: Our participants were torn over whether digital contact tracing is a good idea or not, and views were heavily influenced by moral reasoning. Patient or Public Contribution: No patients were involved in this study. The public were not involved in the development of the research questions, research design or outcome measures. A pilot focus group with participants not included in the present paper was used to help test and refine the focus group questions. Summary results were disseminated via email to participants prior to publication for feedback and comment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined reactions to the UK government's Better Health campaign through a thematic analysis of tweets. Four themes were generated: Embracing Better Health; There is no Better Health without mental health; Inconsistent messaging; Only a surface-level solution. Findings suggest the campaign is problematic, given its lack of consideration for mental health and wider societal factors that contribute to obesity. The campaign could exacerbate mental health difficulties for individuals with eating disorders due to its focus on weight and perceived fat-shaming approach. Recommendations are made to develop future campaigns that avoid negative public responses, minimise harms, and maximise intended benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People increasingly provide feedback about healthcare services online. These practices have been lauded for enhancing patient power, choice and control, encouraging greater transparency and accountability, and contributing to healthcare service improvement. Online feedback has also been critiqued for being unrepresentative, spreading inaccurate information, undermining care relations, and jeopardising professional autonomy. Through a thematic analysis of 37 qualitative interviews, this paper explores the relationship between online feedback and care improvement as articulated by healthcare service users (patients and family members) who provided feedback across different online platforms and social media in the UK. Online feedback was framed by interviewees as, ideally, a public and, in many cases, anonymous 'conversation' between service users and healthcare providers. These 'conversations' were thought of not merely as having the potential to bring about tangible improvements to healthcare, but as in themselves constituting an improvement in care. Vital to this was the premise that providing feedback was an enactment of care – care for other patients, certainly, but also care for healthcare as such and even for healthcare professionals. Ultimately, feedback was understood as an enactment of care for the National Health Service (NHS), as symbolically encompassing all of the above. Putting these findings in dialogue with STS scholarship on care, we argue that, in this context, the provision of online feedback can be understood as a form of care that is, simultaneously, both directed at healthcare (in the round, including patients, professionals, services, organisations, and, of course, health itself) and part of healthcare. We conceptualise this as 'caring for care'. This conceptualization moves beyond dominant framings of online feedback in terms of 'choice' and 'voice'. It embeds online feedback within pre-existing healthcare systems, relations and moral commitments, foregrounds the mutuality of care relations, and draws attention to the affective labour of feedback practices. • Explores the relationship between online healthcare feedback and care improvement. • Focuses on the perspective of people providing online feedback in the UK. • Feedback framed as 'care' and 'conversation', rather than 'choice' and 'voice'. • Foregrounds the (potentially) anonymous and public dimensions of online feedback. • Conceptualises online feedback as 'caring for care' in context of public healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public health initiatives seek to modify lifestyle behaviours associated with risk (e.g., diet, exercise, and smoking), but underpinning psychological and affective processes must also be considered to maximize success. Objective: This study aimed to qualitatively assess how participants engaged with and utilized the best possible self (BPS)‐intervention specifically as a type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention tool. Design and Methods: Fourteen participants engaged with a tailored BPS intervention. Reflexive thematic analysis analysed accounts of participant's experiences and feasibility of use. Results: All participants submitted evidence of engagement with the intervention. The analysis considered two main themes: Holistic Health and Control. The analysis highlighted several nuanced ways in which individuals conceptualized their health, set goals, and received affective benefits, offering insights into how people personalized a simple intervention to meet their health needs. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to tailor the BPS intervention as a public health application for the prevention of T2D. The intervention enabled users to identify their best possible selves in a way that encouraged T2D preventive behaviours. We propose that our tailored BPS intervention could be a flexible and brief tool to assist public health efforts in encouraging change to aid T2D prevention. Public Contribution: The format, language and application of the BPS intervention were adapted in response to a public consultation group that developed a version specifically for application in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, antibody testing was proposed by several countries as a surveillance tool to monitor the spread of the virus and potentially to ease restrictions. In the UK, antibody testing originally formed the third pillar of the UK Government's COVID-19 testing programme and was thought to offer hope that those with a positive antibody test result could return to normal life. However, at that time scientists and the public had little understanding of the longevity of COVID-19 antibodies, and whether they provided immunity to reinfection or transmission of the virus. This paper explores the UK public's understanding of COVID-19 testing, perceived test accuracy, the meaning of a positive test result, willingness to adhere to restrictive measures in response to an antibody test result and how they expect other people to respond. On-line synchronous focus groups were conducted in April/May 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic and the most stringent period of the COVID-19 restrictive measures. Data were analysed thematically. There was confusion in responses as to whether those with a positive or negative test should return to work and which restrictive measures would apply to them or their household members. Participants raised concerns about the wider public response to positive antibody test results and the adverse behavioural effects. There were worries that antibody tests could create a divided society particularly if those with a positive test result were given greater freedoms or chose to disregard the restrictive measures. Should these tests be offered more widely, information should be developed in consultation with the public to ensure clarity and address uncertainty about test results and subsequent behaviours. • There has been considerable global effort in developing Covid-19 antibody tests. • There are major gaps in evidence about immunity with a positive antibody test. • What the results mean for subsequent immunity and behaviour is unclear. • Antibody tests have the potential to cause discrimination and stigmatisation. • A major campaign, developed with target audiences, should be launched before rollout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Changes in thinking skills are commonly experienced by older adults, though large variation exists. Such changes are one of the top concerns of people as they get older. Public perceptions of those changes could be used to effectively communicate with them about ways to improve their thinking skills. This study explored people's views about maintaining and improving thinking skills with age in a UK-wide survey completed by respondents aged 40 and over. Respondents answered an open-ended question "What would be one piece of advice you would give to someone to maintain or improve their thinking skills with age?". Responses from 3,165 individuals (95% of the survey sample) were analyzed using content analysis. Three main themes emerged: keeping fit and healthy in mind and body; staying engaged with the world around you; and attitudes to prevent decline. Respondents thought that keeping physically and mentally active, being sociable, having a purpose in life and positive attitude, and preventative strategies could help maintain thinking skills. Adults aged 40 and over in the UK thought there are things that can help preserve thinking skills with age. The survey findings support previous research, extending the findings to adults in the UK. Understanding people's beliefs can inform better communication with them about what can benefit thinking skills. Effective communication should provide resources and advice in the same way other public health messaging is carried out (such as that regarding heart health). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To explore UK public perceptions of children's sugar consumption, Public Health England's Change4Life Sugar Smart app and the Soft Drinks Industry Levy, using solicited and unsolicited digital data. Methods: Data from three digital spaces were used as follows: (1) an online questionnaire advertised on parenting forums; (2) posts to UK online parenting forums; and (3) English language Tweets from Twitter. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data using content and inductive thematic analysis. Results: Data were (study 1) 184 questionnaire participants; (study 2) 412 forum posts; and (study 3) 618 Tweets. In study 1, 94.0% (n = 173) agreed that children in the UK consumed too much sugar and this had a negative health effect (98.4%, n = 181). Environments (n = 135, 73.4%), media/advertising (n = 112, 60.9%) and parents (n = 107, 58.2%) were all reported as barriers to changing children's sugar intake. In study 2, more posts were negative towards the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (n = 189, 45.9%) than positive (n = 145, 35.2%), and themes about the inability of the Levy to affect sugar consumption in children and childhood obesity emerged. Other themes related to distrust of the government, food industry and retailers. In study 3, the Sugar Smart app was viewed positively (n = 474, 76.7%) with its function associated solely with identification of sugar content. Conclusions: Participants accepted the necessity of sugar reduction in children, but recognised the complexity of behaviour change. Public health activities were not always perceived as effective strategies for health promotion. There was some distrust in government, public health officials and the food industry. A less simplistic approach to sugar reduction and more credible sources of information may, therefore, be welcomed by the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]