Suchergebnisse

Objectives: Young people are considered at lower risk from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, measures to limit the population health impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic have caused significant disruptions to their lives. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of young people predominantly living in the south-west of England during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study design: Rapid qualitative study. Methods: Following advertisement on social media, a purposive sample of young people by age and gender who had expressed an interest were invited to participate. In June 2020, 21 young people (12–17 years) took part in 18 semi-structured interviews, either through a digital platform or by telephone. Interviews were recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken, assisted by NVvivo Software. Results: Young people felt the greatest impacts of the pandemic have been disruption to how they learned because of school closures and limited face-to-face interaction with their social networks. There was variation in terms of how satisfied young people were with self-directed learning at home, and some anxieties in relation to its effectiveness outside the school environment. Most young people reported maintaining social relationships remotely, but some young people appeared to have little social interaction outside their household. High levels of adherence to social distancing and handwashing were reported, which could lead to a sense of injustice resulting from visibility of other people breaching social distancing guidance. Young people were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 if a vaccine became available, with the greatest motivator being to protect others above themselves. Conclusions: Young people have experienced significant disruption to their education and social networks during the COVID-19 pandemic. During lockdown, high levels of compliance to government public health guidelines to reduce transmission of COVID-19 were reported by young people. If an effective vaccine is developed, a schoolsbased vaccination programme could be an efficient method to interrupt transmission to more at-risk populations and prevent further disruptions to young people's education.

Objectives: young people are considered at lower risk from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, measures to limit the population health impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic have caused significant disruptions to their lives. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of young people predominantly living in the south-west of England during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study design: rapid qualitative study. Methods: following advertisement on social media, a purposive sample of young people by age and gender who had expressed an interest were invited to participate. In June 2020, 21 young people (12–17 years) took part in 18 semi-structured interviews, either through a digital platform or by telephone. Interviews were recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken, assisted by NVvivo Software. Results: young people felt the greatest impacts of the pandemic have been disruption to how they learned because of school closures and limited face-to-face interaction with their social networks. There was variation in terms of how satisfied young people were with self-directed learning at home, and some anxieties in relation to its effectiveness outside the school environment. Most young people reported maintaining social relationships remotely, but some young people appeared to have little social interaction outside their household. High levels of adherence to social distancing and handwashing were reported, which could lead to a sense of injustice resulting from visibility of other people breaching social distancing guidance. Young people were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 if a vaccine became available, with the greatest motivator being to protect others above themselves. Conclusions: young people have experienced significant disruption to their education and social networks during the COVID-19 pandemic. During lockdown, high levels of compliance to government public health guidelines to reduce transmission of COVID-19 were reported by young people. If an effective vaccine is developed, a schools-based vaccination programme could be an efficient method to interrupt transmission to more at-risk populations and prevent further disruptions to young people's education.

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.

This paper introduces and discusses key issues in the economic evaluation of digital health interventions. The purpose is to stimulate debate so that existing economic techniques may be refined or new methods developed. The paper does not seek to provide definitive guidance on appropriate methods of economic analysis for digital health interventions. This paper describes existing guides and analytic frameworks that have been suggested for the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Using selected examples of digital health interventions, it assesses how well existing guides and frameworks align to digital health interventions. It shows that digital health interventions may be best characterized as complex interventions in complex systems. Key features of complexity relate to intervention complexity, outcome complexity, and causal pathway complexity, with much of this driven by iterative intervention development over time and uncertainty regarding likely reach of the interventions among the relevant population. These characteristics imply that more-complex methods of economic evaluation are likely to be better able to capture fully the impact of the intervention on costs and benefits over the appropriate time horizon. This complexity includes wider measurement of costs and benefits, and a modeling framework that is able to capture dynamic interactions among the intervention, the population of interest, and the environment. The authors recommend that future research should develop and apply more-flexible modeling techniques to allow better prediction of the interdependency between interventions and important environmental influences. ; This paper is one of the outputs of two workshops, one supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC)/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme (PI Susan Michie) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (PI Kevin Patrick), and the other by the National Science Foundation (PI Donna Spruitj-Metz, proposal # 1539846). The Health Economics Research Unit is funded in part by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. ; This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by Elsevier.

This 2016 theme section of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine is supported by funding from the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) to support the dissemination of research on digital health interventions, methods, and implications for preventive medicine. This paper is one of the outputs of two workshops, one supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC)/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Program (PI Susan Michie), the OBSSR (William Riley, Director) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (PI Kevin Patrick); and the other by the National Science Foundation (PI Donna Spruitj-Metz, proposal # 1539846). The Health Economics Research Unit is funded in part by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. Laura Bojke was supported in the preparation/submission of this paper by the HEOM Theme of the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber (NIHR CLAHRC YH, www.clarhrc-yh.nir.ac.uk). The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent those of the funders. Elizabeth Murray is Managing Director of a not-for-profit Community Interest Company, HeLP-Digital, which aims to disseminate digital health interventions to the National Health Service. No other financial disclosures were reported by the author of this paper. ; Peer reviewed ; Postprint

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to explore barriers and facilitators to uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to explore views and reactions to efforts to improve vaccine uptake among vaccine hesitant individuals. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people between the age of 18–29 years who had not had a COVID-19 vaccine, and those between 30 and 49 years who had not had a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: A total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose, and 35 had not been vaccinated. Participants described a willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe and to avoid restrictions. Barriers to uptake included: (1) perceived lack of need for COVID-19 vaccinations, (2) concerns about the efficacy of vaccinations, (3) concerns about safety, and (4) access issues. Uptake appeared to be influenced by age and health status, trust in government, and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may be viewed as coercive. CONCLUSION: Participants were hesitant, rather than opposed, and had questions about their need for, and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Young people did not consider themselves to be at risk of becoming ill from COVID-19, did not think the vaccination was effective in preventing transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted regarding possible long-term side-effects. Concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in government, and misunderstanding of science. To promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that explains the benefits of vaccination and addresses safety concerns more effectively. To overcome inertia in people with low levels of motivation to be vaccinated, appointments must be easily accessible. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07380-9.

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.

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.

Background The aim of this work was to explore barriers and facilitators to uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to explore views and reactions to efforts to improve vaccine uptake among vaccine hesitant individuals. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people between the age of 18–29 years who had not had a COVID-19 vaccine, and those between 30 and 49 years who had not had a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Results A total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose, and 35 had not been vaccinated. Participants described a willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe and to avoid restrictions. Barriers to uptake included: (1) perceived lack of need for COVID-19 vaccinations, (2) concerns about the efficacy of vaccinations, (3) concerns about safety, and (4) access issues. Uptake appeared to be influenced by age and health status, trust in government, and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may be viewed as coercive. Conclusion Participants were hesitant, rather than opposed, and had questions about their need for, and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Young people did not consider themselves to be at risk of becoming ill from COVID-19, did not think the vaccination was effective in preventing transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted regarding possible long-term side-effects. Concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in government, and misunderstanding of science. To promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that explains the benefits of vaccination and addresses safety concerns more effectively. To overcome inertia in people with low levels of motivation to be vaccinated, appointments must be easily accessible.

Background: deciding whether to discontinue antibiotics at early review is a cornerstone of hospital antimicrobial stewardship practice worldwide. In England this approach is described in government guidance ("Start Smart then Focus"). However, <10% of hospital antibiotic prescriptions are discontinued at review, despite evidence that 20-30% could be discontinued safely. We aimed to quantify the relative importance of factors influencing prescriber decision-making at review. Methods: we conducted an online choice experiment, a survey method to elicit preferences. Acute/general hospital prescribers in England were asked if they would continue or discontinue antibiotic treatment in 15 hypothetical scenarios. Scenarios were described according to six attributes, including patients' presenting symptoms and whether discontinuation would conflict with local prescribing guidelines. Respondents' choices were analysed using conditional logistic regression. Results: 100 respondents completed the survey. Respondents were more likely to continue antibiotics when discontinuation would 'strongly conflict' with local guidelines (average marginal effect (AME) on probability of continuing +0.194 (p<0.001)); when presenting symptoms more clearly indicated antibiotics (AME of urinary tract infection symptoms +0.173 (p<0.001) versus unclear symptoms); and when patients had severe frailty/comorbidities (AME=+0.101 (p<0.001)). Respondents were less likely to continue antibiotics when under no external pressure to continue (AME=-0.101 (p<0.001)). Decisions were also influenced by the risks to patient health of continuing/discontinuing antibiotic treatment. Conclusions: guidelines that conflict with antibiotic discontinuation (e.g. pre-specify fixed durations) may discourage safe discontinuation at review. In contrast, guidelines conditional on patient factors/treatment-response could help hospital prescribers discontinue antibiotics if diagnostic information suggesting they are no longer needed is available.

Background: A rigorous approach is needed to inform rapid adaptation and optimisation of behavioral interventions in evolving public health contexts, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. This helps ensure that interventions are relevant, persuasive, and feasible while remaining evidence-based. This paper provides a set of iterative methods to rapidly adapt and optimize an intervention during implementation. These methods are demonstrated through the example of optimizing an effective online handwashing intervention called Germ Defense. Methods: Three revised versions of the intervention were rapidly optimized and launched within short timeframes of 1–2 months. Optimisations were informed by: regular stakeholder engagement; emerging scientific evidence, and changing government guidance; rapid qualitative research (telephone think-aloud interviews and open-text surveys), and analyses of usage data. All feedback was rapidly collated, using the Table of Changes method from the Person-Based Approach to prioritize potential optimisations in terms of their likely impact on behavior change. Written feedback from stakeholders on each new iteration of the intervention also informed specific optimisations of the content. Results: Working closely with clinical stakeholders ensured that the intervention was clinically accurate, for example, confirming that information about transmission and exposure was consistent with evidence. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors identified important clarifications to intervention content, such as whether Covid-19 can be transmitted via air as well as surfaces, and ensured that information about difficult behaviors (such as self-isolation) was supportive and feasible. Iterative updates were made in line with emerging evidence, including changes to the information about face-coverings and opening windows. Qualitative research provided insights into barriers to engaging with the intervention and target behaviors, with open-text surveys providing a useful supplement to detailed ...