Search

Abstract Background The 2022-23 mpox epidemic is the first-time sustained community transmission had been reported in countries without epidemiological links to endemic areas. During that period, the outbreak almost exclusively affected sexual networks of gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) and people living with HIV. In efforts to control transmission, multiple public health measures were implemented, including vaccination, contact tracing and isolation. This study examines knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of mpox among a sample of GBMSM during the 2022-23 outbreak in the UK, including facilitators for and barriers to the uptake of public health measures. Methods Interviews were conducted with 44 GBMSM between May and December 2022. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Positive and negative comments pertaining to public health measures were collated in a modified version of a ‘table of changes’ to inform optimisations to public health messages and guidance. Results Most interviewees were well informed about mpox transmission mechanisms and were either willing to or currently adhering to public health measures, despite low perceptions of mpox severity. Measures that aligned with existing sexual health practices and norms were considered most acceptable. Connections to GBMSM networks and social media channels were found to increase exposure to sexual health information and norms influencing protective behaviours. Those excluded or marginalized from these networks found some measures challenging to perform or adhere to. Although social media was a key mode of information sharing, there were preferences for timely information from official sources to dispel exaggerated or misleading information. Conclusions There are differential needs, preferences, and experiences of GBMSM that limit the acceptability of some mitigation and prevention measures. Future public health interventions and campaigns should be co-designed in consultation with key groups and communities to ensure greater acceptability and credibility in different contexts and communities.

Abstract Background During the early “containment” phase of the COVID-19 response in England (January-March 2020), contact tracing was managed by Public Health England (PHE). Adherence to self-isolation during this phase and how people were making those decisions has not previously been determined. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of decisions around adherence to self-isolation during the first phase of the COVID-19 response in England. Methods A mixed-methods cross sectional study was conducted, including an online survey and qualitative interviews. The overall pattern of adherence was described as never leaving home, leaving home for lower-contact reasons and leaving home for higher-contact reasons. Fisher’s exact test was used to test associations between adherence and potentially predictive binary factors. Factors showing evidence of association overall were then considered in relation to the three aspects of adherence individually. Qualitative data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Of 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-contact activities (dog walking or exercise) and 16% reported leaving for higher-contact, and therefore higher-risk, reasons. 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, 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. Conclusions Understanding adherence to isolation and associated reasoning during the early stages of the pandemic is essential to pandemic preparedness for future emerging infectious disease outbreaks. Individuals make complex decisions around adherence by calibrating transmission risks, therefore treating adherence as binary should be avoided.

Introduction Children attending school whilst unwell, known as school-based presenteeism, results in negative impacts on education and mental and physical health. We aimed to identify the risk factors for this behaviour. Method We conducted a systematic search of five databases (11 July 2022) using words associated with school (e.g., school and childcare) and presenteeism (e.g., presenteeism and sick leave). The studies are synthesised according to the risk factors associated with school-based presenteeism and are grouped into themes by related topics. Results Our review included 18 studies, with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method study designs. Children, parents, and school staff reported past incidents and intentions for future presenteeism. We identified five themes from these reports: perceptions about the illness / signs and symptom(s); children’s characteristics; children’s and parents’ motivations and attitudes towards school; organisational factors; and school sickness policy. Increased risk of school-based presenteeism was commonly linked to symptoms that were perceived low in severity and unidentifiable, children with a high school absence record, disbelief in children’s illness, unsupportive employers, vague school policies and financial consequences. Conclusions School-based presenteeism is complex due to the competing interests of the multiple individuals involved, such as children, parents, and school staff. Sickness policies need to include clear and specific guidance about illness and the signs and symptoms of diseases and should be communicated to all relevant individuals to mitigate against discrepancies in how the policy is interpreted. Furthermore, parents and school staff need support, such as financial and childcare, to be able to manage children when they are unwell.

Objectives To investigate rates of mpox beliefs, knowledge and intended behaviours in the general population and in gay, bisexual or other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), and factors associated with intended behaviours. To test the impact of motivational messages (vs a factual control) on intended behaviours.Design Cross-sectional online survey including a nested randomised controlled trial.Setting Data collected from 5 September 2022 to 6 October 2022.Participants Participants were aged 18 years or over and lived in the UK (general population). In addition, GBMSM were male, and gay, bisexual or had sex with men. The general population sample was recruited through a market research company. GBMSM were recruited through a market research company, the dating app Grindr and targeted adverts on Meta (Facebook and Instagram).Main outcome measures Intention to self-isolate, seek medical help, stop all sexual contact, share details of recent sexual contacts and accept vaccination.Results Sociodemographic characteristics differed by sample. There was no effect of very brief motivational messaging on behavioural intentions. Respondents from Grindr and Meta were more likely to intend to seek help immediately, completely stop sexual behaviour and be vaccinated or intend to be vaccinated, but being less likely to intend to self-isolate (ps

Abstract Background The national shielding programme was introduced by UK Government at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) offered advice and support to stay at home and avoid all non-essential contact. This study aimed to explore the impact and responses of “shielding” on the health and wellbeing of CEV individuals in Southwest England during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Methods A two-stage mixed methods study, including a structured survey (7 August—23 October 2020) and semi-structured telephone interviews (26 August—30 September 2020) with a sample of individuals who had been identified as CEV and advised to “shield” by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). Results The survey was completed by 203 people (57% female, 54% > 69 years, 94% White British, 64% retired) in Southwest England identified as CEV by BNSSG CCG. Thirteen survey respondents participated in follow-up interviews (53% female, 40% > 69 years, 100% White British, 61% retired). Receipt 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. Conclusions This 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.

A lesson identified from the COVID-19 pandemic is that we need to extend existing best practice for intervention development. In particular, we need to integrate (a) state-of-the-art methods of rapidly coproducing public health interventions and messaging to support all population groups to protect themselves and their communities with (b) methods of rapidly evaluating co-produced interventions to determine which are acceptable and effective. This paper describes the Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework, which is intended to provide a focus for investigating new ways of rapidly developing effective interventions and messaging by combining co-production methods with large-scale testing and/or real-world evaluation. We briefly review some of the participatory, qualitative and quantitative methods that could potentially be combined and propose a research agenda to further develop, refine and validate packages of methods in a variety of public health contexts to determine which combinations are feasible, cost-effective and achieve the goal of improving health and reducing health inequalities.

Abstract Background In July 2021, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to compare the effect on SARS-CoV-2 transmission of seven days of Daily Contact Testing (DCT) using Lateral Flow Test (LFT) and two Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests as an alternative to 10 days of standard self-isolation with one PCR, following close contact with a SARS-CoV-2 carrier. In this qualitative study, we used a nested process evaluation to aid interpretation of the trial and provide insight into factors influencing use of tests, understanding of test results, and how tests were used to inform behavioural decisions. Methods Interviews were conducted with 60 participants (42 randomised to DCT and 18 randomised to self-isolation) who had been in close contact with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 carrier and had consented to take part in the trial. Results Data were organised into three overarching themes: (1) assessing the risks and benefits of DCT (2) use of testing during the study period and (3) future use of testing. Attitudes toward DCT as an alternative to self-isolation and behaviour during the testing period appeared to be informed by an assessment of the associated risks and benefits. Participants reported how important it was for them to avoid isolation, how necessary self-isolation was considered to be, and the ability of LFTs to detect infection. Behaviour during the testing period was modified to reduce risks and harms as much as possible. Testing was considered a potential compromise, reducing both risk of transmission and the negative impact of self-isolation, and was regarded as a way to return to normal. Conclusion Participants in this study viewed DCT as a sensible, feasible, and welcome means of avoiding unnecessary self-isolation. Although negative LFTs provided reassurance, most people still restricted their activity as recommended. DCT was also highly valued by those in vulnerable households as a means of providing reassurance of the absence of infection and as an important means of detecting infection and prompting self-isolation when necessary.

Abstract Objectives To assess the quantity and quality of studies using an observational measure of behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to narratively describe the association between self-report and observational data for behaviours relevant to controlling an infectious disease outbreak. Design Systematic review and narrative synthesis of observational studies. Data sources We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, Publons, Scopus and the UK Health Security Agency behavioural science LitRep database from inception to 17th September 2021 for relevant studies. Study selection We included studies which collected observational data of at least one of three health protective behaviours (hand hygiene, face covering use and maintaining physical distance from others (‘social distancing’) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies where observational data were compared to self-report data in relation to any infectious disease were also included. Data extraction and synthesis We evaluated the quality of studies using the NIH quality assessment scale for observational studies, extracted data on sample size, setting and adherence to health protective behaviours, and synthesized results narratively. Results Of 27,279 published papers on COVID-19 relevant health protective behaviours that included one or more terms relating to hand hygiene, face covering and social distancing, we identified 48 studies that included an objective observational measure. Of these, 35 assessed face covering use, 17 assessed hand hygiene behaviour and seven assessed physical distancing. The general quality of these studies was good. When expanding the search to all infectious diseases, we included 21 studies that compared observational versus self-report data. These almost exclusively studied hand hygiene. The difference in outcomes was striking, with self-report over-estimating observed adherence by up to a factor of five in some settings. In only four papers did self-report match observational data in any domains. Conclusions Despite their importance in controlling the pandemic, we found remarkably few studies assessing protective behaviours by observation, rather than self-report, though these studies tended to be of reasonably good quality. Observed adherence tends to be substantially lower than estimates obtained via self-report. Accurate assessment of levels of personal protective behaviour, and evaluation of interventions to increase this, would benefit from the use of observational methods.

Abstract Social mixing contributes to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We developed a composite measure for risky social mixing, investigating changes during the pandemic and factors associated with risky mixing. Forty-five waves of online cross-sectional surveys were used (n = 78,917 responses; 14 September 2020 to 13 April 2022). We investigated socio-demographic, contextual and psychological factors associated with engaging in highest risk social mixing in England at seven timepoints. Patterns of social mixing varied over time, broadly in line with changes in restrictions. Engaging in highest risk social mixing was associated with being younger, less worried about COVID-19, perceiving a lower risk of COVID-19, perceiving COVID-19 to be a less severe illness, thinking the risks of COVID-19 were being exaggerated, not agreeing that one’s personal behaviour had an impact on how COVID-19 spreads, and not agreeing that information from the UK Government about COVID-19 can be trusted. Our composite measure for risky social mixing varied in line with restrictions in place at the time of data collection, providing some validation of the measure. While messages targeting psychological factors may reduce higher risk social mixing, achieving a large change in risky social mixing in a short space of time may necessitate a reimposition of restrictions.

Background: We investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake, future vaccination intentions, and changes in beliefs and attitudes over time. Methods: Prospective cohort study. 1500 participants completed an online survey in January 2021 (T1, start of vaccine rollout in the UK), of whom 1148 (response rate 76.5 %) completed another survey in October 2021 (T2, all UK adults offered two vaccine doses). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate factors associated with subsequent vaccine uptake. Content analysis was used to investigate the main reasons behind future vaccine intentions (T2). Changes in beliefs and attitudes were investigated using analysis of variance. Findings: At T2, 90.0 % (95 % CI 88.2–91.7 %) of participants had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 2.2 % (95 % CI 1.3–3.0 %) had received one dose, and 7.4 % (95 % CI 5.9–8.9 %) had not been vaccinated. Uptake was associated with higher intention to be vaccinated at T1, greater perceived vaccination social norms, necessity of vaccination, and perceived safety of the vaccine. People who had initiated vaccination reported being likely to complete it, while those who had not yet received a vaccine reported being unlikely to be vaccinated in the future. At T2, participants perceived greater susceptibility to, but lower severity of, COVID-19 (p

Abstract Background Behaviour is key to suppressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Maintaining behaviour change can be difficult. We investigated engagement with hand cleaning, reducing the number of outings, and wearing a face covering over the course of the pandemic. Methods We used a series of 64 cross-sectional surveys between 10 February 2020 and 20 January 2022 (n ≈ 2000 per wave). Surveys investigated uptake of hand cleaning behaviours, out of home activity (England only, n ≈ 1700 per wave) and wearing a face covering (England only, restricted to those who reported going out shopping in the last week, n ≈ 1400 per wave). Results Reported hand cleaning has been high throughout the pandemic period (85 to 90% of participants consistently reporting washing their hands thoroughly and regularly with soap and water frequently or very frequently). Out of home activity has mirrored the easing and re-introduction of restrictive measures. Total number of outings were higher in the second national lockdown than in the first and third lockdowns. Wearing a face covering increased steadily between April to August 2020, plateauing until the end of measurement in May 2021, with approximately 80% of those who had been out shopping in the previous week reporting wearing a face covering frequently or very frequently. Conclusions Engagement with protective behaviours increased at the start of the pandemic and has remained high since. The greatest variations in behaviour reflected changes to Government rules. Despite the duration of restrictions, people have continued to adopt personal protective behaviours that were intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

In England (UK), at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic the public were required to reduce their physical contacts to slow the spread of COVID-19. We investigated the factors associated with children having: 1) close contact with family members from outside their household ('non-adherent behaviour'); and 2) low well-being (Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale). We conducted an online cross-sectional survey, completed at any location of the participant's choice between 8 and 11 June 2020 in parents (n = 2,010) who were aged eighteen years or over and had a school-aged child (4-18 years old). Parents reported that 15% (n = 309) of children had non-adherent contact and that 26% (n = 519) had low well-being. We used a series of binary logistic regressions to investigate associations between outcomes and child and parent characteristics. Children had higher odds of having non-household contact when they had special educational needs [adjusted odds ratio, 2.19 (95% CI, 1.47 to 3.27)], lower well-being [2.65 (95% CI, 2.03 to 3.46)], were vulnerable to COVID-19 [2.17 (95% CI, 1.45 to 3.25)], lived with someone who was over 70 years old [2.56 (95% CI, 1.55 to 4.24)] and their parent had low well-being [1.94 (95% CI, 1.45 to 2.58)]. Children had higher odds of lower well-being when they had special educational needs [4.13 (95% CI, 2.90 to 5.87)], were vulnerable to COVID-19 [3.06 (95% CI, 2.15 to 4.36)], lived with someone else who was vulnerable to COVID-19 [2.08 (95% CI, 1.64 to 2.64)], or lived with someone who was over 70 years old [2.41 (95% CI, 1.51 to 3.83)]. Many children came into contact with non-household family members, mainly for childcare. Factors relating to COVID-19, children's well-being and education were also important. If school closures are needed in future, addressing these issues may help reduce contact.

BackgroundUnderstanding the dynamics of an infectious disease outbreak linked to sexual activity requires valid expectations of likely counts of unique sex partners during the infectious period. Typically, age is the key demographic trait linked to expected partner count, with many transmission models removing adults from the sexually active pool abruptly at a pre-specified age threshold. Modelling the rate of decline in partner counts with age would benefit from a better description of empirical evidence.MethodsDuring the 2022 mpox epidemic in the UK, we asked individuals about their partner counts in the preceding three weeks, which is about the same as usual infectious period for persons with active mpox. We used negative binomial regression (all responses) and Weibull regression (non-zero responses) to analyse the relationship between age and partner counts, adjusted for other demographic data (such as education level and occupation), sub-dividing by three types of respondent: men who have sex with men (MSM), men who have sex with women, and women who have sex with men.ResultsMost respondents had zero or one recent partner, all distributions were skewed. There was a relatively linear declining relationship between age and partner counts for heterosexual partnership groups, but a peak in partner counts and concurrency for MSMs in middle age years (age 35-54), especially for MSM who seemed to be in a highly sexually active subgroup.ConclusionUseful data were collected that can be used to describe sex partner counts during the British mpox epidemic and that show distinctive partner count relationships with age, dependent on partnership type.

Objectives To investigate changes in beliefs and behaviours following news of the Omicron variant and changes to guidance understanding of Omicron-related guidance, and factors associated with engaging with protective behaviours.Design Series of cross-sectional surveys (1 November to 16 December 2021, five waves of data collection).Setting Online.Participants People living in England, aged 16 years or over (n=1622–1902 per wave).Primary and secondary outcome measures Levels of worry and perceived risk, and engagement with key behaviours (out-of-home activities, risky social mixing, wearing a face covering and testing uptake).Results Degree of worry and perceived risk of COVID-19 (to oneself and people in the UK) fluctuated over time, increasing slightly around the time of the announcement about Omicron (p

To investigate factors associated with intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,500 UK adults, recruited from an existing online research panel. Data were collected between 14th and 17th July 2020. We used linear regression analyses to investigate associations between intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19 “when a vaccine becomes available to you” and sociodemographic factors, previous influenza vaccination, general vaccine attitudes and beliefs, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19, and attitudes and beliefs about a COVID-19 vaccination. 64% of participants reported being very likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 27% were unsure, and 9% reported being very unlikely to be vaccinated. Personal and clinical characteristics, previous influenza vaccination, general vaccination beliefs, and beliefs and attitudes about COVID-19 and a COVID-19 vaccination explained 76% of the variance in vaccination intention. Intention to be vaccinated was associated with more positive general COVID-19 vaccination beliefs and attitudes, weaker beliefs that the vaccination would cause side effects or be unsafe, greater perceived information sufficiency to make an informed decision about COVID-19 vaccination, greater perceived risk of COVID-19 to others (but not risk to oneself), older age, and having been vaccinated for influenza last winter (2019/20). Despite uncertainty around the details of a COVID-19 vaccination, most participants reported intending to be vaccinated for COVID-19. Actual uptake may be lower. Vaccination intention reflects general vaccine beliefs and attitudes. Campaigns and messaging about a COVID-19 vaccination could consider emphasizing the risk of COVID-19 to others and necessity for everyone to be vaccinated.

Abstract Background In December 2020, Public Health England with NHS Test and Trace initiated a pilot study in which close contacts of people with confirmed COVID-19 were given the option to carryout lateral flow device antigen tests at home, as an alternative to self-isolation for 10–14 days. In this study, we evaluated engagement with daily testing, and assessed levels of adherence to the rules relating to behaviour following positive or negative test results. Methods We conducted a service evaluation of the pilot study, examining survey responses from a subset of those who responded to an evaluation questionnaire. We used an online cross-sectional survey offered to adult contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases who consented to daily testing. We used a comparison group of contacts who were not offered testing and instead self-isolated. Results Acceptability of daily testing was lower among survey respondents who were not offered the option of testing and among people from ethnic minority groups. Overall, 52% of respondents reported being more likely to share details of people that they had been in contact with following a positive test result, if they knew that their contacts would be offered the option of daily testing. Only 2% reported that they would be less likely to provide details of their contacts. On the days that they were trying to self-isolate, 19% of participants reported that they left the house, with no significant group differences. Following a negative test, 13% of respondents reported that they increased their contacts, but most (58%) reported having fewer risky contacts. Conclusions Our data suggest that daily testing is potentially acceptable, may facilitate sharing contact details of close contacts among those who test positive for COVID-19, and promote adherence to self-isolation. A better understanding is needed of how to make this option more acceptable for all households. The impact of receiving a negative test on behaviour remains a risk that needs to be monitored and mitigated by appropriate messaging. Future research should examine attitudes and behaviour in a context where infection levels are lower, testing is more familiar, and restrictions on activity have been reduced.

Abstract Background Covid-status certification – certificates for those who test negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, test positive for antibodies, or who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 – has been proposed to enable safer access to a range of activities. Realising these benefits will depend in part upon the behavioural and social impacts of certification. The aim of this rapid review was to describe public attitudes towards certification, and its possible impact on uptake of testing and vaccination, protective behaviours, and crime. Method A search was undertaken in peer-reviewed databases, pre-print databases, and the grey literature, from 2000 to December 2020. Studies were included if they measured attitudes towards or behavioural consequences of health certificates based on one of three indices of Covid-19 status: test-negative result for current infectiousness, test-positive for antibodies conferring natural immunity, or vaccination(s) conferring immunity. Results Thirty-three papers met the inclusion criteria, only three of which were rated as low risk of bias. Public attitudes were generally favourable towards the use of immunity certificates for international travel, but unfavourable towards their use for access to work and other activities. A significant minority was strongly opposed to the use of certificates of immunity for any purpose. The limited evidence suggested that intention to get vaccinated varied with the activity enabled by certification or vaccination (e.g., international travel). Where vaccination is seen as compulsory this could lead to unwillingness to accept a subsequent vaccination. There was some evidence that restricting access to settings and activities to those with antibody test certificates may lead to deliberate exposure to infection in a minority. Behaviours that reduce transmission may decrease upon health certificates based on any of the three indices of Covid-19 status, including physical distancing and handwashing. Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that health certification in relation to COVID-19 – outside of the context of international travel – has the potential for harm as well as benefit. Realising the benefits while minimising the harms will require real-time evaluations allowing modifications to maximise the potential contribution of certification to enable safer access to a range of activities.

Background During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the United Kingdom government imposed public health policies in England to reduce social contacts in hopes of curbing virus transmission. We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study to measure contact patterns weekly from March 2020 to March 2021 to estimate the impact of these policies, covering 3 national lockdowns interspersed by periods of less restrictive policies. Methods and findings The repeated cross-sectional survey data were collected using online surveys of representative samples of the UK population by age and gender. Survey participants were recruited by the online market research company Ipsos MORI through internet-based banner and social media ads and email campaigns. The participant data used for this analysis are restricted to those who reported living in England. We calculated the mean daily contacts reported using a (clustered) bootstrap and fitted a censored negative binomial model to estimate age-stratified contact matrices and estimate proportional changes to the basic reproduction number under controlled conditions using the change in contacts as a scaling factor. To put the findings in perspective, we discuss contact rates recorded throughout the year in terms of previously recorded rates from the POLYMOD study social contact study. The survey recorded 101,350 observations from 19,914 participants who reported 466,710 contacts over 53 weeks. We observed changes in social contact patterns in England over time and by participants’ age, personal risk factors, and perception of risk. The mean reported contacts for adults 18 to 59 years old ranged between 2.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20 to 2.60) contacts and 4.93 (95% CI 4.65 to 5.19) contacts during the study period. The mean contacts for school-age children (5 to 17 years old) ranged from 3.07 (95% CI 2.89 to 3.27) to 15.11 (95% CI 13.87 to 16.41). This demonstrates a sustained decrease in social contacts compared to a mean of 11.08 (95% CI 10.54 to 11.57) contacts per participant in all age groups combined as measured by the POLYMOD social contact study in 2005 to 2006. Contacts measured during periods of lockdowns were lower than in periods of eased social restrictions. The use of face coverings outside the home has remained high since the government mandated use in some settings in July 2020. The main limitations of this analysis are the potential for selection bias, as participants are recruited through internet-based campaigns, and recall bias, in which participants may under- or overreport the number of contacts they have made. Conclusions In this study, we observed that recorded contacts reduced dramatically compared to prepandemic levels (as measured in the POLYMOD study), with changes in reported contacts correlated with government interventions throughout the pandemic. Despite easing of restrictions in the summer of 2020, the mean number of reported contacts only returned to about half of that observed prepandemic at its highest recorded level. The CoMix survey provides a unique repeated cross-sectional data set for a full year in England, from the first day of the first lockdown, for use in statistical analyses and mathematical modelling of COVID-19 and other diseases. In a repeated cross-sectional study, Amy Gimma and colleagues study social contact patterns in the context of lockdown periods and government interventions in England during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Author summary Why was this study done? Mathematical models can be used to better understand the transmission dynamics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and could be strengthened by empirical evidence of the number of social contacts made under pandemic conditions. We identified a need for real-time social contact data to inform outbreak models, as we expected social contact behaviour to change due to perceived risk and in response to government policies restricting social contact over the course of the pandemic. We launched the CoMix social contact and behavioural study on March 24, 2020 to capture the changes in social contacts, risk perception, and other behaviours, such as hand hygiene and the use of face coverings. What did the researchers do and find? During the most stringent lockdown in the UK, we found that the mean number of reported contacts in England was about 75% less than prepandemic measures for adults over the age of 17. Throughout the year, the mean number of contacts remained low—only reaching about 50% of the prepandemic levels, even during periods of relatively few policies remaining to restrict social activity. During each lockdown, contacts returned to similar levels as the first lockdown for adults, while the mean number of contacts for children depends on whether or not schools were open for in-person learning. What do these findings mean? Throughout the year, the UK government, which governs England, used the CoMix social contact data to monitor social contacts and as an early indication of changes to the basic reproduction number. While these data have been put to use in real time, both researchers and policymakers need to take into account some limitations of the CoMix study results, including the self-reporting of social contacts, which could lead to bias as a result of inaccurate memory or due to social pressure to report more or fewer contacts. These data will continue to be used by researchers and policymakers to monitor changes in social behaviour, to model transmission of COVID-19 and other diseases, and to make important policy decisions.

We aimed to describe worry and uptake of behaviours that prevent the spread of infection (respiratory and hand hygiene, distancing) in the UK at the start of the COVID-19 outbreak (January and February 2020) and to investigate factors associated with worry and adopting protective behaviours. Three cross-sectional online surveys of UK adults (28 to 30 January, n = 2016; 3 to 6 February, n = 2002; 10 to 13 February 2020, n = 2006) were conducted. We used logistic regressions to investigate associations between outcome measures (worry, respiratory and hand hygiene behaviour, distancing behaviour) and explanatory variables. 19.8% of participants (95% CI 18.8% to 20.8%) were very or extremely worried about COVID-19. People from minoritized ethnic groups were particularly likely to feel worried. 39.9% of participants (95% CI 37.7% to 42.0%) had completed one or more hand or respiratory hygiene behaviour more than usual in the last seven days. Uptake was associated with greater worry, perceived effectiveness of individual behaviours, self-efficacy for engaging in them, and having heard more information about COVID-19. 13.7% (95% CI 12.2% to 15.2%) had reduced the number of people they had met. This was associated with greater worry, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy. At the start of novel infectious disease outbreaks, communications should emphasise perceived effectiveness of behaviours and the ease with which they can be carried out.

Abstract Background Fear of side‐effects can result in non‐adherence to medical interventions, such as medication and chemotherapy. Side‐effect expectations have been identified as strong predictors of later perception of side‐effects. However, research investigating predictors of side‐effect expectations is disparate. Objective To identify factors associated with side‐effect expectations. Search strategy We systematically searched Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. Inclusion criteria Studies were included if they investigated associations between any predictive factor and expectations of side‐effects from any medical intervention. Data extraction and synthesis We extracted information about participant characteristics, medication, rates of side‐effects expected and predictors of side‐effect expectations. Data were narratively synthesized. Main results We identified sixty‐four citations, reporting on seventy‐two studies. Predictors fell into five categories: personal characteristics, clinical characteristics, psychological traits and state, presentation format of information, and information sources used. Using verbal risk descriptors (eg ‘common’) compared to numerical descriptors (eg percentages), having lower quality of life or well‐being, and currently experiencing symptoms were associated with increased side‐effect expectations. Discussion and conclusions Decreasing unrealistic side‐effect expectations may lead to decreased experience of side‐effects and increased adherence to medical interventions. Widespread communications about medical interventions should describe the incidence of side‐effects numerically. Evidence suggests that clinicians should take particular care with patients with lower quality of life, who are currently experiencing symptoms and who have previously experienced symptoms from treatment. Further research should investigate different clinical populations and aim to quantify the impact of the media and social media on side‐effect expectations.

Abstract Background Individuals who conduct disaster relief work overseas are exposed to a variety of traumatic events that can cause distress and trigger psychological illnesses. Identification of which disaster relief workers may be at risk of experiencing psychological distress or mental health disorders is frequently carried out through pre-employment or pre-deployment psychological screening. The primary objective of our review was to assess the evidence for pre-employment and pre-deployment psychological screening of relief workers who work in disaster situations. We aimed to identify specific pre-employment and pre-deployment characteristics that predict impaired wellbeing of an individual following engaging in disaster-related work. Methods A combined list of search terms was composed relating to disaster-related occupations, screening methods, psychological disorders, and study design. The databases used were PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and GlobalHealth. We included studies that used cross-sectional or longitudinal study designs; were published in the English language in peer-reviewed academic journals; reported on the association between pre-employment and pre-deployment features and post-deployment psychological disorders or distress; considered any occupational groups responding to a specified, discrete crisis; and used at least one validated measure of distress or disorder. We extracted data on the author; year of publication; disaster description; country of study; study design; population sample; disorder(s) outcome and the measures used; and results. Results Sixty-two, high-quality studies were included in the review. Forty-one potential predictors were identified. Of these, only volunteer status and previous history of mental illness and life stressors emerged as reliable predictors of distress or disorder. Conclusion The results suggest that whilst it is attractive to screen for pre-employment and pre-deployment indicators of resilience, the evidence base for doing so is weak. At best, this sort of screening can only weakly suggest vulnerability and at worst may result in discrimination. Until better evidence about its usefulness becomes available, employers should exercise caution over its use.

Abstract Background To mitigate and slow the spread of COVID-19, many countries have adopted unprecedented physical distancing policies, including the UK. We evaluate whether these measures might be sufficient to control the epidemic by estimating their impact on the reproduction number (R 0, the average number of secondary cases generated per case). Methods We asked a representative sample of UK adults about their contact patterns on the previous day. The questionnaire was conducted online via email recruitment and documents the age and location of contacts and a measure of their intimacy (whether physical contact was made or not). In addition, we asked about adherence to different physical distancing measures. The first surveys were sent on Tuesday, 24 March, 1 day after a “lockdown” was implemented across the UK. We compared measured contact patterns during the “lockdown” to patterns of social contact made during a non-epidemic period. By comparing these, we estimated the change in reproduction number as a consequence of the physical distancing measures imposed. We used a meta-analysis of published estimates to inform our estimates of the reproduction number before interventions were put in place. Results We found a 74% reduction in the average daily number of contacts observed per participant (from 10.8 to 2.8). This would be sufficient to reduce R 0 from 2.6 prior to lockdown to 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.89) after the lockdown, based on all types of contact and 0.37 (95% CI = 0.22–0.53) for physical (skin to skin) contacts only. Conclusions The physical distancing measures adopted by the UK public have substantially reduced contact levels and will likely lead to a substantial impact and a decline in cases in the coming weeks. However, this projected decline in incidence will not occur immediately as there are significant delays between infection, the onset of symptomatic disease, and hospitalisation, as well as further delays to these events being reported. Tracking behavioural change can give a more rapid assessment of the impact of physical distancing measures than routine epidemiological surveillance.

Abstract Background Flooding is expected to increase due to climate change, population growth and urban development. The longer-term mental health impacts of flooding are not well understood. In 2015, the English National Study of Flooding and Health was established to improve understanding of the impact of flooding on health and inform future public health action. Methods We used 3 years of data from the English National Study of Flooding and Health. Participants who had consented to follow up were sent a questionnaire. Participants were classified into either “unaffected”, “disrupted” or “flooded” according to their exposure. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios for probable depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in each exposure group. The Wald test was used to assess the difference in probable mental health outcomes for those who did and did not experience “persistent damage” to their home. Conditional logistic regression was conducted to assess change in prevalence over the 3 years and to identify possible determinants of recovery. Results Eight hundred nineteen individuals were included in the final analysis – 119 were classified as unaffected, 421 disrupted and 279 flooded. Overall, 5.7% had probable depression, 8.1% had probable anxiety and 11.8% had probable PTSD, with higher prevalence in the flooded group compared with the unaffected group. After adjustment for potential confounders, probable mental health outcomes were higher in the flooded group compared to the unaffected group, significantly for probable depression (aOR 8.48, 95% CI 1.04–68.97) and PTSD (aOR 7.74, 95% CI 2.24–26.79). Seventy-seven (9.4%) participants reported experiencing persistent damage to their home, most commonly damp (n = 40) and visible mould (n = 26) in liveable rooms. Of the 569 participants who responded at all 3 years, a significant reduction in prevalence for all probable mental health outcomes was observed in the flooded group. Conclusions Flooding can have severe long-lasting consequences on mental health in affected populations. If these problems are not identified and treated early, they may persist for years. Further research is necessary to develop and evaluate interventions to increase resilience in at risk populations and to ensure timely access to support services following flooding.

Abstract Background The aim of this systematic review was to identify predictors of actual or intended adherence with malaria chemoprophylaxis amongst travellers from non-endemic countries visiting endemic countries. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Global Health databases for studies published up to April 2019. Studies were included if they assessed reasons for adherence among people travelling from a country where malaria was not endemic to a country where it was. Results Thirty-two studies were included. Predictors of adherence were categorized as relating to either the nature of the travel or the traveller themselves. The three main predictors associated with nature of travel included: destination (e.g. country visited, urban vs rural areas), length of travel and type of travel (e.g. package vs backpacking holiday). The four main traveller-associated predictors were: age, reason for travel (e.g. business, leisure or visiting friends and relatives), perceived risk of catching malaria and experienced or expected medication effects. Conclusions In order to improve adherence, clinicians should focus on travellers who are least likely to exhibit adherent behaviour. This includes travellers visiting destinations known to have lower adherence figures (such as rural areas), backpackers, business travellers, younger travellers and those travelling for longer periods of time. They should also check to ensure travellers’ perceptions of the risks of malaria are realistic. Where appropriate, misperceptions (such as believing that curing malaria is easier than taking prophylaxis or that travellers visiting relatives have some level of innate immunity) should be corrected. All travellers should be informed of the potential side-effects of medication and given guidance on why it is nonetheless beneficial to continue to take prophylaxis. Further research is required to test interventions to improve adherence.

In 2020, schools in England closed for six months due to COVID-19, resulting in children being home-schooled. There is limited understanding about the impacts of this on children's mental and physical health and their education. Therefore, we explored how families coped with managing these issues during the school closures. We conducted 30 qualitative interviews with parents of children aged 18 years and under (who would usually be in school) between 16 and 21 April 2020. We identified three themes and eight sub-themes that impacted how families coped whilst schools were closed. We found that family dynamics, circumstances, and resources (Theme 1), changes in entertainment activities and physical movement (Theme 2) and worries about the COVID-19 pandemic (Theme 3) impacted how well families were able to cope. A key barrier to coping was struggles with home-schooling (e.g., lack of resources and support from the school). However, parents being more involved in their children's personal development and education were considered a benefit to home-schooling. Managing the lack of entertainment activities and in-person interactions, and additional health worries about loved ones catching COVID-19 were challenges for families. Parents reported adverse behaviour changes in their children, although overall, they reported they were coping well. However, pre-existing social and educational inequalities are at risk of exacerbation. Families with more resources (e.g., parental supervision, access to green space, technology to facilitate home-schooling and no special educational needs) were better able to cope when schools were closed. On balance, however, families appeared to be able to adapt to the schools being closed. We suggest that policy should focus on supporting families to mitigate the widening health and educational gap between families with more and less resources.

Background Using test, trace and isolate systems can help reduce the spread of COVID-19. Parents have the additional responsibility of using these systems for themselves and acting on behalf of their children to help control COVID-19. We explored factors associated with the use of England’s NHS Test and Trace service among parents of school-aged children. Methods One-to-one telephone interviews with parents (n = 18) of school-aged (4 to 18 years) children living in England between 30 November to 11 December 2020. Data were explored using thematic analysis. Results Three themes and eight sub-themes emerged. In terms of recognising symptoms of COVID-19, parents needed prompting before recalling the main symptoms described by the NHS. Parents suggested several factors relating to the nature of the symptom(s) and contextual information that might lead to or prevent them from seeking a test. Although parents supported symptomatic testing and described trusting official sources of information (e.g., Government and NHS websites). However, some concerns were raised regarding the accuracy of test results, safety at testing centres and logistics of testing but none of the concerns appeared to prevent engagement with testing. Parents perceived adherence to testing and self-isolation as pro-social behaviour, although family resources and circumstances impacted their ability to adhere fully. Conclusions Our study identified several barriers to parents using NHS Test and Trace as needed. Information about the eligibility of testing (main symptoms of COVID-19 and the age of eligibility) needs to be more precise and resources provided to enable families to adhere to self-isolation if the efficiency of test, trace and isolate systems is to be optimised.

Abstract Background Disasters are becoming more prevalent across the world and people are frequently exposed to them as part of their occupational groups. It is important for organisations to understand how best to support employees who have experienced a trauma such as a disaster. The purpose of this study was to explore employees’ perceptions of workplace support and help-seeking in the context of a disaster. Methods Forty employees in England took part in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was used to extract recurring themes from the data. Results Participants reported both positive and negative psychological outcomes of experiencing a disaster or emergency at work. Most had little training in how to prepare for, and cope with, the psychological impact. They perceived stigma around mental health and treatment for psychological issues which often made them reluctant to seek help. Many reported that the psychological support available in the workplace was insufficient and tended to be reactive rather than proactive. Interpersonal relationships at work were viewed as being important sources of support, particularly support from managers. Participants suggested that psychosocial training in the workplace could be beneficial in providing education about mental health, encouraging supportive workplace relationships, and developing listening skills and empathy. Conclusions Organisations can take steps to reduce the psychological impact of disasters on employees. This could be done through provision of training workshops incorporating mental health education to reduce stigma, and team-building exercises to encourage supportive workplace relationships.

Introduction: In December 2020 and January 2021 Public Health England (PHE) with NHS Test and Trace conducted a study to explore the feasibility and acceptability of daily testing as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case. This qualitative paper aims to identify factors influencing uptake among those offered daily testing, and the subsequent impact on behaviour.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 52 participants who had taken part in the feasibility study. Participants were asked about their experiences of daily testing or self-isolating, their reasons for choosing to test or isolate, and their behaviour during the study period. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.Results: Results are presented under two main headings: (1) factors influencing acceptance of testing and (2) impact of test results. Participants appeared highly motivated to engage in behaviours that would protect others from the virus. Factors influencing the decision to accept testing included (1) needing to avoid self-isolation, (2) concerns about test sensitivity, and (3) perceived benefits of detecting infection. Participants who were taking tests reported: (1) positive consequences following confirmation of COVID status, (2) engaging in essential activities, (3) uncertainty, and (4) self-isolating whilst testing.Conclusions: This study has identified a range of factors that appear to influence the decision to engage in daily testing or to self-isolate following close contact with a positive case, many of which could be addressed by clear communications. Covid-19 infection rates and government restrictions influenced experiences, and so further research is needed to explore perceptions of daily testing and behaviour following close contact with a positive case among a wider range of individuals, in the context of lower rates of COVID-19, few government restrictions on general population behaviour and more widespread testing.

Objective: Key to reducing the spread of COVID-19 in the UK is increased use of the NHS Test and Trace (NHSTT) system. This study explored one of the main issues that determine whether people engage with NHSTT, how people understand symptoms that may indicate the presence of COVID-19 and that should trigger a request for a test.Methods: In this qualitative study, a series of semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 people (21 members of the general population, 19 students). There was nearly an equal split between male and female participants in both samples. Data were collected between 30 November and 11 December 2020 and explored using thematic analysis. There was substantial similarity in responses for both populations so we combined our results and highlighted where differences were present.Results: Participants generally had good knowledge of the main symptoms of COVID-19 (high temperature, new, persistent cough, anosmia) but had low confidence in their ability to differentiate them from symptoms of other illnesses. Attribution of symptoms to COVID-19 was most likely where the symptoms were severe, many symptoms were present, symptoms had lasted for some time and when perceived risk of exposure to infection was high due to previous contact with others. Participants felt encouraged to engage in testing where symptoms were present and had persisted for several days, though, many had concerns about the safety of testing centres and the accuracy of test results. Students had mixed feelings about mass asymptomatic testing, seeing it as a way to access a more normal student experience, but also a potential waste of resources.Conclusions: This study offers novel insights into how people attribute symptoms to COVID-19 and barriers and facilitators to engaging with NHSTT. Participants had positive views of testing, but there is a need to improve not just recognition of each main symptom, but also understanding that even single, mild symptoms may necessitate a test rather than a “wait and see” approach, and to address concerns around test accuracy to increase testing uptake.

Objectives (1) To understand the experiences and perceptions of those who underwent supported isolation, particularly in relation to factors that were associated with improved compliance and well-being; (2) to inform recommendations for the management of similar supported isolation procedures.Design We carried out a qualitative study using semistructured interviews to capture participants’ experiences and perceptions of supported isolation. Data were analysed using the framework approach, a type of thematic analysis that is commonly used in research that has implications for policy.Setting Telephone interviews carried out within approximately 1 month of an individual leaving supported isolation.Participants 26 people who underwent supported isolation at either Arrowe Park Hospital (n=18) or Kents Hill Park Conference Centre (n=8) after being repatriated from Wuhan in January to February 2020.Results Six key themes were identified: factors affecting compliance with supported isolation; risk perceptions around catching COVID-19; management of supported isolation; communication with those outside supported isolation; relationship with others in supported isolation; and feelings on leaving supported isolation. Participants were willing to undergo supported isolation because they understood that it would protect themselves and others. Positive treatment by staff was fundamental to participants’ willingness to comply with isolation procedures. Despite the high level of compliance, participants expressed some uncertainty about what the process would involve.Conclusions As hotel quarantine is introduced across the UK for international arrivals, our findings suggest that those in charge should: communicate effectively before, during and after quarantine, emphasising why quarantine is important and how it will protect others; avoid coercion if possible and focus on supporting and promoting voluntary compliance; facilitate shared social experiences for those in quarantine; and ensure all necessary supplies are provided. Doing so is likely to increase adherence and reduce any negative effects on well-being.

Ventilating indoor spaces helps prevent COVID-19 transmission. We investigated self-reported rates of opening windows to improve ventilation in the home, perceived effectiveness of opening windows, and confidence that if you wanted to, you could open windows. One in 6 people reported rarely, if ever, opening windows in their home in the last week. Three in 4 people knew that opening windows to improve ventilation was an effective way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and 5 in 6 were confident that they could open windows in their home. Official messaging should continue to seek to improve knowledge about the effectiveness of ventilation for reducing COVID-19 transmission, and increase the frequency of window opening.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240399.].

Objective To assess the impact of describing an antibody-positive test result using the terms Immunity and Passport or Certificate, alone or in combination, on perceived risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and protective behaviours.Design 2×3 experimental design.Setting Online.Participants 1204 adults from a UK research panel.Intervention Participants were randomised to receive one of six descriptions of an antibody test and results showing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, differing in the terms describing the type of test (Immunity vs Antibody) and the test result (Passport vs Certificate vs Test).Main outcome measures Primary outcome: proportion of participants perceiving no risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 given an antibody-positive test result. Other outcomes include: intended changes to frequency of hand washing and physical distancing.Results When using the term Immunity (vs Antibody), 19.1% of participants (95% CI 16.1% to 22.5%) (vs 9.8% (95% CI 7.5% to 12.4%)) perceived no risk of catching coronavirus given an antibody-positive test result (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.91 (95% CI 1.52 to 5.55)). Using the terms Passport or Certificate—as opposed to Test—had no significant effect (AOR: 1.24 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.48) and AOR: 0.96 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.99) respectively). There was no significant interaction between the effects of the test and result terminology. Across groups, perceiving no risk of infection was associated with an intention to wash hands less frequently (AOR: 2.32 (95% CI 1.25 to 4.28)); there was no significant association with intended avoidance of physical contact (AOR: 1.37 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.03)).Conclusions Using the term Immunity (vs Antibody) to describe antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 increases the proportion of people believing that an antibody-positive result means they have no risk of catching coronavirus in the future, a perception that may be associated with less frequent hand washing.Trial registration number Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/tjwz8/files/

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, schools in England were only kept open to children of ‘key workers’ and, from 1 June, to children in reception, year 1 and year 6. Our cross-sectional survey of parents found low rates of attendance (

BackgroundUntil a vaccine is developed, a test, trace and isolate strategy is the most effective method of controlling the COVID-19 outbreak. Contact tracing and case isolation are common methods for controlling infectious disease outbreaks. However, the effectiveness of any contact tracing system rests on public engagement. Numerous factors may influence an individual's willingness to engage with a contact tracing system. Understanding these factors has become urgent during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveTo identify facilitators and barriers to uptake of, and engagement with, contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks.MethodA rapid systematic review was conducted to identify papers based on primary research, written in English, and that assessed facilitators, barriers, and other factors associated with the uptake of, and engagement with, a contact tracing system.Principal findingsFour themes were identified as facilitators to the uptake of, and engagement with, contact tracing: collective responsibility; personal benefit; co-production of contact tracing systems; and the perception of the system as efficient, rigorous and reliable. Five themes were identified as barriers to the uptake of, and engagement with, contact tracing: privacy concerns; mistrust and/or apprehension; unmet need for more information and support; fear of stigmatization; and mode-specific challenges.ConclusionsBy focusing on the factors that have been identified, contact tracing services are more likely to get people to engage with them, identify more potentially ill contacts, and reduce transmission.

ObjectivesTo investigate whether people who think they have had COVID-19 are less likely to report engaging with lockdown measures compared with those who think they have not had COVID-19.DesignOn-line cross-sectional survey.SettingData were collected between 20th and 22nd April 2020.Participants6149 participants living in the UK aged 18 years or over.Main outcome measuresPerceived immunity to COVID-19, self-reported adherence to social distancing measures (going out for essential shopping, nonessential shopping, and meeting up with friends/family; total out-of-home activity), worry about COVID-19 and perceived risk of COVID-19 to oneself and people in the UK. Knowledge that cough and high temperature / fever are the main symptoms of COVID-19. We used logistic regression analyses and one-way ANOVAs to investigate associations between believing you had had COVID-19 and binary and continuous outcomes respectively.ResultsIn this sample, 1493 people (24.3%) thought they had had COVID-19 but only 245 (4.0%) reported having received a positive test result. Reported test results were often incongruent with participants' belief that they had had COVID-19. People who believed that they had had COVID-19 were: more likely to agree that they had some immunity to COVID-19; less likely to report adhering to lockdown measures; less worried about COVID-19; and less likely to know that cough and high temperature / fever are two of the most common symptoms of COVID-19.ConclusionsAt the time of data collection, the percentage of people in the UK who thought they had already had COVID-19 was about twice the estimated infection rate. Those who believed they had had COVID-19 were more likely to report leaving home. This may contribute to transmission of the virus. Clear communications to this growing group are needed to explain why protective measures continue to be important and to encourage sustained adherence.

Abstract Background The longer term impact of flooding on health is poorly understood. In 2015, following widespread flooding in the UK during winter 2013/14, Public Health England launched the English National Study of Flooding and Health. The study identified a higher prevalence of probable psychological morbidity one year after exposure to flooding. We now report findings after two years. Methods In year two (2016), a self-assessment questionnaire including flooding-related exposures and validated instruments to screen for probable anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was sent to all participants who consented to further follow-up. Participants exposure status was categorised according to responses in year one; we assessed for exposure to new episodes of flooding and continuing flood-related problems in respondents homes. We calculated the prevalence and odds ratio for each outcome by exposure group relative to unaffected participants, adjusting for confounders. We used the McNemar test to assess change in outcomes between year one and year two. Results In year two, 1064 (70%) people responded. The prevalence of probable psychological morbidity remained elevated amongst flooded participants [n = 339] (depression 10.6%, anxiety 13.6%, PTSD 24.5%) and disrupted participants [n = 512] (depression 4.1%, anxiety 6.4%, PTSD 8.9%), although these rates were reduced compared to year one. A greater reduction in anxiety 7.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6–9.9) was seen than depression 3.8% (95% CI 1.5–6.1) and PTSD: 6.6% (95% CI 3.9–9.2). Exposure to flooding was associated with a higher odds of anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.2 95%, 95% CI 1.7–16.3) and depression (aOR 8.7, 95% CI 1.9–39.8) but not PTSD. Exposure to disruption caused by flooding was not significantly associated with probable psychological morbidity. Persistent damage in the home as a consequence of the original flooding event was reported by 119 participants (14%). The odds of probable psychological morbidity amongst flooded participants who reported persistent damage, compared with those who were unaffected, were significantly higher than the same comparison amongst flooded participants who did not report persistent damage. Conclusions This study shows a continuance of probable psychological morbidity at least two years following exposure to flooding. Commissioners and providers of health and social care services should be aware that the increased need in populations may be prolonged. Efforts to resolve persistent damage to homes may reduce the risk of probable psychological morbidity.

The likelihood of major incidents and disasters has increased in recent years, due to climate change, urbanisation, and acts of terrorism. Effective management of such incidents is crucial to ensure that members of the public are able and willing to take appropriate protective actions. The workshop described in this paper brought together researchers, practitioners and policy makers with expertise in emergency planning, preparedness and response to generate recommendations for major incident management. Workshop participants agreed that understanding the psychosocial aspects of major incidents is crucial to effective incident response, and a number of key themes were raised during workshop discussions. Based on these themes, four key recommendations can be made for informing planning and preparedness for major incidents.

Abstract Background In winter 2013/14 there was widespread flooding in England. Previous studies have described an increased prevalence of psychological morbidity six months after flooding. Disruption to essential services may increase morbidity however there have been no studies examining whether those experiencing disruption but not directly flooded are affected. The National Study of Flooding and Health was established in order to investigate the longer-term impact of flooding and related disruptions on mental health and wellbeing. Methods In year one we conducted a cross sectional analysis of people living in neighbourhoods affected by flooding between 1 December 2013 and 31 March 2014. 8761 households were invited to participate. Participants were categorised according to exposure as flooded, disrupted by flooding or unaffected. We used validated instruments to screen for probable psychological morbidity, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ 2), Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-2) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) checklist (PCL-6). We calculated prevalence and odds ratios for each outcome by exposure group relative to unaffected participants, adjusting for confounders. Results 2126 people (23%) responded. The prevalence of psychological morbidity was elevated amongst flooded participants ([n = 622] depression 20.1%, anxiety 28.3%, PTSD 36.2%) and disrupted participants ([n = 1099] depression 9.6%, anxiety 10.7% PTSD 15.2%). Flooding was associated with higher odds of all outcomes (adjusted odds ratios (aORs), 95% CIs for depression 5.91 (3.91–10.99), anxiety 6.50 (3.77–11.24), PTSD 7.19 (4.33–11.93)). Flooded participants who reported domestic utilities disruption had higher odds of all outcomes than other flooded participants, (aORs, depression 6.19 (3.30–11.59), anxiety 6.64 (3.84–11.48), PTSD 7.27 (4.39–12.03) aORs without such disruption, depression, 3.14 (1.17–8.39), anxiety 3.45 (1.45–8.22), PTSD 2.90 (1.25–6.73)). Increased floodwater depth was significantly associated with higher odds of each outcome. Disruption without flooding was associated with borderline higher odds of anxiety (aOR 1.61 (0.94–2.77)) and higher odds of PTSD 2.06 (1.27–3.35)) compared with unaffected participants. Disruption to health/social care and work/education was also associated with higher odds of psychological morbidity. Conclusions This study provides an insight into the impact of flooding on mental health, suggesting that the impacts of flooding are large, prolonged and extend beyond just those whose homes are flooded.

Highlights of the article:

Background: Nocebo effects contribute to a large proportion of the non-specific side-effects attributed to medications and are mainly generated through negative expectations. Previous reviews show that interventions designed to change participants' expectations have a small effect on pain experience. They are also effective in reducing side-effects caused by exposure to sham medications. To date, there has been no review of the influence of such interventions on symptoms attributed to real medicinal treatments.Objective: To review studies using a randomized controlled design testing the effect of brief psychological interventions compared to usual practice on the side-effect experience to medicinal treatments in healthy volunteers and patients.Methods: We searched Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, and Cochrane CENTRAL using search terms for randomized controlled trials along with “nocebo,” “placebo effect,” “medication,” “side-effects,” and associated terms. Studies were eligible if they studied a human population, used an active medicine, delivered a brief psychological intervention intended to influence side-effect reporting compared to usual care or no intervention, and used a randomized controlled design. Because of the heterogeneity of the literature we used a narrative synthesis and assessed evidence quality using the GRADE approach.Results: Our database search and supplementary search of the reference sections of included studies retrieved 50,140 citations. After screening, full text review and manual reference searches, 27 studies were included. The quality of the studies and evidence was judged to be low. The strongest and most consistent effect came from omitting side-effect information, although surprisingly de-emphasizing side-effects did not affect side-effect reporting. Other techniques, including priming, distraction, and altering the perception of branding, produced mixed results.Conclusion: Brief psychological interventions can influence side-effect reporting to active medications. Research is currently investigating new ways to de-emphasize side-effects whilst still upholding informed consent, but larger confirmatory trials with suitable control groups are needed. The literature in this area would be improved by more detailed reporting of studies.

Background: Extensive flooding occurred during the winter of 2013–14 in England. Previous studies have shown that flooding affects mental health. Using data from the 2013–14 Public Health England National Study of Flooding and Health, we compared the prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder between participants displaced by flooding and those flooded, but not displaced, 1 year after flooding. Methods: In this multivariable ordinal regression analysis, we collected data from a cross-sectional survey collected 1 year after the flooding event from flood-affected postcodes in five counties in England. The analysis was restricted to individuals whose homes were flooded (n=622) to analyse displacement due to flooding. The primary outcome measures were depression (measured by the PHQ-2 depression scale) and anxiety (measured by the two-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder [GAD]-2 anxiety scale), and post-traumatic stress disorder (measured by the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist [PCL]-6 scale). We adjusted analyses for recorded potential confounders. We also analysed duration of displacement and amount of warning received. Findings: People who were displaced from their homes were significantly more likely to have higher scores on each scale; odds ratio (OR) for depression 1·95 (95% CI 1·30–2·93), for anxiety 1·66 (1·12–2·46), and for post-traumatic stress disorder 1·70 (1·17–2·48) than people who were not displaced. The increased risk of depression was significant even after adjustment for severity of flooding. Scores for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder were higher in people who were displaced and reported receiving no warning than those who had received a warning more than 12 h in advance of flooding (p=0·04 for depression, p=0·01 for post-traumatic stress disorder), although the difference in anxiety scores was not significant. Interpretation: Displacement after flooding was associated with higher reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder 1 year after flooding. The amount of warning received showed evidence of being protective against symptoms of the three mental illnesses studied, and the severity of flooding might be the reason for some, but not all, of the differences between the groups. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Units (HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London, Environmental Change and Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Evaluation of Interventions at the University of Bristol, Public Health England.