Search

This study aimed to investigate (1) definitions of self-isolation used during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) measures used to quantify adherence and their reliability, validity, and acceptability; (3) rates of self-isolation adherence; and (4) factors associated with adherence. This was a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO record CRD42022377820). MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, PsyArXiv, medRxiv, and grey literature sources were searched (1 January 2020 to 13 December 2022) using terms related to COVID-19, isolation, and adherence. Studies were included if they contained original, quantitative data of self-isolation adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic. We extracted definitions of self-isolation, measures used to quantify adherence, adherence rates, and factors associated with adherence. We included 45 studies. Self-isolation was inconsistently defined. Four studies did not use self-report measures. Of 41 studies using self-report, one reported reliability; another gave indirect evidence for the lack of validity of the measure. Rates of adherence to self-isolation for studies with only some concerns of bias were 51%–86% for COVID-19 cases, 78%–94% for contacts, and 16% for people with COVID-19-like symptoms. There was little evidence that self-isolation adherence was associated with sociodemographic or psychological factors. There was no consensus in defining, operationalising, or measuring self-isolation, resulting in significant risk of bias in included studies. Future definitions of self-isolation should state behaviours to be enacted and duration. People recommended to self-isolate should be given support. Public health campaigns should aim to increase perceived effectiveness of self-isolation and promote accurate information about susceptibility to infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public health control measures at borders have long been central to national strategies for the prevention and containment of infectious diseases. Travel was inevitably associated with the rapid global transmission of COVID-19. In the UK, public health authorities tried to reduce the risks of travel-associated spread by providing public health information at ports of entry. This study investigates risk assessment processes, decision-making and adherence to official advice among international travellers, to provide evidence for future policy on the provision of public health information to facilitate safer international travel. This study is a qualitative study evaluation. International air passengers arriving at the London Heathrow Airport on scheduled flights from China and Singapore were approached for interview after consenting to contact in completed surveys. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone, using two topic guides to explore views of official public health information and self-isolation. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed thematically. Participants regarded official advice from Public Health England as adequate at the time, despite observing differences with intervention measures implemented in their countries of departure. Most participants also described adopting precautionary measures, including self-isolation and the use of face coverings that went beyond official advice, but reported adherence to guidance on contacting health authorities was more variable. Adherence to the official guidance was informed by the perceived salience of specific transmission possibilities and containment measures assessed in relation to participants' local social and institutional environments. Analysis of study findings demonstrates that international air travellers' responses to public health advice constitute a proactive process of risk assessment and rationalised decision-making to guide preventive action. This process incorporates consideration of the current living situation, trust in information sources, correspondence with cultural logics and willingness to accept potential risk to self and significant others. Our findings concerning international passengers' understanding of, and compliance with, official advice and mitigation measures provide valuable evidence to inform future policy and generate recommendations on the presentation of public health information to facilitate safer international travel. Access to a central source of regularly updated official information would help minimise confusion between different national guidelines. Greater attention to the differentiated information needs of diverse groups in creating future public-facing guidance would help to minimise the uncertainties generated by the receipt of generic information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigate factors associated with the intention to have the COVID-19 vaccination following initiation of the UK national vaccination programme. An online cross-sectional survey completed by 1500 adults (13th–15th January 2021). Linear regression analyses were used to investigate associations between intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19 and sociodemographic factors, previous influenza vaccination, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination and vaccination in general. Participants' main reasons for likely vaccination (non-)uptake were also solicited. 73.5% of participants (95% CI 71.2%, 75.7%) reported being likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 17.3% (95% CI 15.4%, 19.3%) were unsure, and 9.3% (95% CI 7.9%, 10.8%) reported being unlikely to be vaccinated. The full regression model explained 69.8% of the variance in intention. Intention was associated with: having been/intending to be vaccinated for influenza last winter/this winter; stronger beliefs about social acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine; the perceived need for vaccination; adequacy of information about the vaccine; and weaker beliefs that the vaccine is unsafe. Beliefs that only those at serious risk of illness should be vaccinated and that the vaccines are just a means for manufacturers to make money were negatively associated with vaccination intention. Most participants reported being likely to get the COVID-19 vaccination. COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and beliefs are a crucial factor underpinning vaccine intention. Continued engagement with the public with a focus on the importance and safety of vaccination is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the containment phase of the response to the COVID-19 outbreak, Public Health England (PHE) delivered advice to travellers arriving at major UK ports. We aimed to rapidly evaluate the impact and effectiveness of these communication materials for passengers in the early stages of the pandemic. The study design used is the mixed-methods evaluation. A questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews with passengers arriving at London Heathrow Airport on scheduled flights from China and Singapore. The survey assessed passengers' knowledge of symptoms, actions to take, and attitudes towards PHE COVID-19 public health information; interviews explored their views of official public health information and self-isolation. One hundred and twenty-one passengers participated in the survey and 15 in follow-up interviews. Eighty three percentage of surveyed passengers correctly identified all three COVID-19 associated symptoms listed in PHE information at that time. Most could identify the recommended actions and found the advice understandable and trustworthy. Interviews revealed that passengers shared concerns about the lack of wider official action, and that passengers' knowledge had been acquired elsewhere as much from PHE. Respondents also noted their own agency in choosing to self-isolate, partially as a self-protective measure. PHE COVID-19 public health information was perceived as clear and acceptable, but we found that passengers acquired knowledge from various sources and they saw the provision of information alone on arrival as an insufficient official response. Our study provides fresh insights into the importance of taking greater account of diverse information sources and of the need for public assurance in creating public health information materials to address global health threats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union (EU) Decision (1082/2013/EU) on serious cross border threats to health was adopted by the European Parliament in November 2013, in recognition of the need to strengthen the capacity of Member States to coordinate the public health response to cross border threats, whether from biological, chemical, environmental events or events which have an unknown origin. Although mechanisms have been in place for years for reporting cross border health threats from communicable diseases, this has not been the case for incidents involving chemicals and/or environmental events. A variety of collaborative EU projects have been funded over the past 10 years through the Health Programme to address gaps in knowledge on health security and to improve resilience and response to major incidents involving chemicals. This paper looks at the EU Health Programme that underpins recent research activities to address gaps in resilience, planning, responding to and recovering from a cross border chemical incident. It also looks at how the outputs from the research programme will contribute to improving public health management of transnational incidents that have the potential to overwhelm national capabilities, putting this into context with the new requirements as the Decision on serious cross border threats to health as well as highlighting areas for future development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]