Recognising and understanding collective resilience in crowds of survivors

No description supplie

Do people with symptoms of an infectious illness follow advice to stay at home? Evidence from a series of cross-sectional surveys about presenteeism in the UK

OBJECTIVES: To assess the percentage of people in the UK with cough, fever or loss of taste or smell who have not had a positive COVID-19 test result who had been to work, to shops, socialised or provided care to a vulnerable person in the 10 days after developing symptoms. To investigate whether these rates differed according to the type of symptom, what the participant thought the cause of their symptoms was and whether they had taken a COVID-19 test. DESIGN: Four online cross-sectional surveys using non-probability quota sampling method (n=8547). SETTING: Data were collected across the UK from 20 September to 3 November 2021, via a market research company. PARTICIPANTS: Aged over 16 years living in the UK. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Out-of-home activity. RESULTS: 498 participants reported one or more symptoms and had not had a positive COVID-19 test result. Within that group, about half of employed participants had attended work while symptomatic (51.2%-56.3% depending on the symptom, 95% CIs 42.2% to 65.6%). Rates of other contact behaviours ranged from 31.4% (caring for a vulnerable person after developing a cough: 95% CI 24.3% to 38.4%) to 61.5% (shopping for groceries or pharmacy after developing a cough: 95% CI 54.1% to 68.9%). There were no differences according to type of symptom experienced or what the participant felt might be the cause. People who had taken a COVID-19 test were less likely to go out shopping for non-essentials than people who had not taken a test. CONCLUSION: Many people in the UK with symptoms of an infectious disease were not following government advice to stay at home if they believed they had an infectious illness. Reducing these rates may require a shift in our national attitude to the acceptability of people attending work with infectious illnesses

Acceptability of, and barriers and facilitators to, a pilot physical health service for people who inject drugs:A qualitative study with service users and providers

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs may experience difficulty accessing or maintaining involvement with traditional healthcare services. This is associated with increased health inequalities and bio-psychosocial difficulties. Embedding physical healthcare services within community-based drug services may provide a practical and feasible approach to increase access and delivery of healthcare. This study explored the acceptability of, and barriers and facilitators to, embedding a pilot physical healthcare service within a community-based drug service in the United Kingdom (Bristol, England). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with service users (people who inject drugs) (n = 13), and a focus group was conducted with service providers (n = 11: nine harm reduction workers, two nurses, one service manager). Topic guides included questions to explore barriers and facilitators to using and delivering the service (based on the COM-B Model), and acceptability of the service (using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability). Transcripts were analysed using a combined deductive framework and inductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The service was viewed as highly acceptable. Service users and providers were confident they could access and provide the service respectively, and perceived it to be effective. Barriers included competing priorities of service users (e.g. drug use) and the wider service (e.g. equipment), and the potential impact of the service being removed in future was viewed as a barrier to overall healthcare access. Both service users and providers viewed embedding the physical health service within an existing community-based drug service as facilitating accessible and holistic care which reduced stigma and discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated embedding a physical health service within an existing community-drug based and alcohol service was acceptable and beneficial. Future studies are required to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and ensure long-term sustainability, and to determine transferability of findings to other settings, organisations and countries

Communication during mass casualty decontamination: highlighting the gaps

Following the World Trade Centre attacks of September 2001, there has been an increased focus in the emergency planning community on methods of managing chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) incidents. This has, necessarily, included consideration of methods and processes for rapid decontamination of large numbers of potentially contaminated people. Real-life decontamination incidents have suggested that some contaminated casualties may not comply with decontamination protocols, resulting in a high risk of re-contamination or secondary contamination beyond the incident site. Effective communication has been recognised as an important issue for the management of CBRN incidents. To examine the current provision for communicating with the public during incidents involving decontamination, open source decontamination guidance documents for responders were reviewed, as were published reports of emergency preparedness exercises involving decontamination. The review of decontamination guidance documents showed that specific guidance for professional responders on how to communicate with the public during incidents that involve decontamination could be improved. Similarly, the review of published decontamination exercises shows that a stronger emphasis on communication with members of the public is needed, in addition to the use of exercises to evaluate the effectiveness of communication strategies. Future research is required to understand how members of the public are likely to react to incidents involving decontamination, and how communication strategies employed by emergency responders can affect the behaviour of the public during these types of incidents

The effect of communication during mass decontamination

Purpose – Reports from small-scale incidents in which decontamination was conducted suggest that a successful communication strategy is vital in order to increase public compliance with, and reduce public anxiety about, decontamination. However, it has not been possible to examine public behaviour during large scale incidents involving decontamination. The aim of the research reported here was to examine the relationship between people’s positive perceptions of responding agencies’ communication strategies and relevant outcome variables, such as level of compliance and level of reassurance, in several field exercises involving mass decontamination. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using feedback questionnaires completed by simulated casualties, which contained items relating to casualties’ perceptions of the success of responding agencies’ communication strategies, their confidence in emergency responders, and their compliance with the decontamination process. Path analysis was used to examine the relationships between variables. Findings – Results show a significant relationship between responding agencies’ communication strategies, level of public reassurance, and level of public compliance. The relationship between responders’ communication strategies and the outcome variables was partially mediated by public confidence in responders. Practical implications – Emergency responders should focus on communication with members of the public as a key element of the decontamination process, as failure to do so could result in high levels of anxiety and low levels of compliance among those who are affected. Originality/value – This research highlights the importance of effective responder communication strategies. Further, findings indicate the value of examining feedback from field exercises in order to facilitate a greater understanding of public experiences of the decontamination process. Keywords Decontamination, Communication, CBRN, Exercis

Impact of residual risk messaging to reduce false reassurance following test-negative results from asymptomatic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing: an online experimental study of a hypothetical test.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals who receive a negative lateral flow coronavirus test result may misunderstand it as meaning 'no risk of infectiousness', giving false reassurance. This experiment tested the impact of adding information to negative test result messages about residual risk and the need to continue protective behaviours. DESIGN: 4 (residual risk) × 2 (post-test result behaviours) between-subjects design. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: 1200 adults from a representative UK sample recruited via Prolific (12-15 March 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of eight messages. Residual risk messages were: (1) 'Your coronavirus test result is negative' (control); (2) message 1 plus 'It's likely you were not infectious when the test was done' (current NHS Test & Trace (T&T); (3) message 2 plus 'But there is still a chance you may be infectious' (elaborated NHS T&T); and (4) message 3 plus infographic depicting residual risk (elaborated NHS T&T+infographic). Each message contained either no additional information or information about the need to continue following guidelines and protective behaviours. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Proportion understanding residual risk of infectiousness and (2) likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours (scales 1-7). RESULTS: The control message decreased understanding relative to the current NHS T&T message: 54% versus 71% (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=0.56 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95, p=0.030). Understanding increased with the elaborated NHS T&T (89%; AOR=3.25 95% CI 1.64 to 6.42, p=0.001) and elaborated NHS T&T+infographic (91%; AOR=5.16 95% CI 2.47 to 10.82, p<0.001) compared with current NHS T&T message. Likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours was unaffected by information (AOR=1.11 95% CI 0.69 to 1.80, χ2(1)=0.18, p=0.669), being high (M=6.4, SD=0.9) across the sample. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of participants misunderstood the residual risk following a negative test result. The addition of a single sentence ('But there is still a chance you may be infectious') to current NHS T&T wording increased understanding of residual risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF: https://osf.io/byfz3/

Impact of residual risk messaging to reduce false reassurance following test-negative results from asymptomatic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing: an online experimental study of a hypothetical test.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals who receive a negative lateral flow coronavirus test result may misunderstand it as meaning 'no risk of infectiousness', giving false reassurance. This experiment tested the impact of adding information to negative test result messages about residual risk and the need to continue protective behaviours. DESIGN: 4 (residual risk) × 2 (post-test result behaviours) between-subjects design. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: 1200 adults from a representative UK sample recruited via Prolific (12-15 March 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of eight messages. Residual risk messages were: (1) 'Your coronavirus test result is negative' (control); (2) message 1 plus 'It's likely you were not infectious when the test was done' (current NHS Test & Trace (T&T); (3) message 2 plus 'But there is still a chance you may be infectious' (elaborated NHS T&T); and (4) message 3 plus infographic depicting residual risk (elaborated NHS T&T+infographic). Each message contained either no additional information or information about the need to continue following guidelines and protective behaviours. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Proportion understanding residual risk of infectiousness and (2) likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours (scales 1-7). RESULTS: The control message decreased understanding relative to the current NHS T&T message: 54% versus 71% (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=0.56 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95, p=0.030). Understanding increased with the elaborated NHS T&T (89%; AOR=3.25 95% CI 1.64 to 6.42, p=0.001) and elaborated NHS T&T+infographic (91%; AOR=5.16 95% CI 2.47 to 10.82, p<0.001) compared with current NHS T&T message. Likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours was unaffected by information (AOR=1.11 95% CI 0.69 to 1.80, χ2(1)=0.18, p=0.669), being high (M=6.4, SD=0.9) across the sample. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of participants misunderstood the residual risk following a negative test result. The addition of a single sentence ('But there is still a chance you may be infectious') to current NHS T&T wording increased understanding of residual risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF: https://osf.io/byfz3/

Daily use of lateral flow devices by contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases to enable exemption from isolation compared with standard self-isolation to reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England:a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

Background: In the UK, during the study period all COVID-19 contacts were required to self-isolate for 10 days, which had adverse impacts. Avoiding the need to self-isolate for those who remain uninfected would be beneficial to society. We investigated whether using daily lateral flow devices (LFDs) to test for COVID-19 with removal of self-isolation for 24 hours if negative was a safe alternative to self-isolation by determining tertiary attack rates (proportion being infected) in study groups.Methods: We conducted a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (Research Registry ID:6809) in adult contacts identified during COVID-19 contact tracing. Consented participants were randomised to self-isolation (SI; single PCR, 10 days isolation) or daily contact-testing (DCT; 7 LFDs, 2 PCRs, no isolation if negative on LFD);participants from a household were assigned to the same arm. Participants were prospectively followed-up with the impact of each intervention on onward transmission determined from routinely collected contact tracing data for COVID-19 participants, and tertiary cases arising from their contacts. Attack rates were derived from cluster-robust standard error Bernoulli regression models. Questionnaires were sent at recruitment and at the end of testing/self-isolation to assess behaviours.Findings: 49,623 individuals consented to participate with final arm allocations of 26,123 DCT (52.6%) and 23,500 SI participants (47.4%). Overall. 4,561 participants tested positive by PCR (secondary cases); 2,359 (10.0%) in the SI arm and 2,202 (8.4%) in the DCT arm. Tertiary attack rates (among secondary contacts) were 7.5% in SI arm and 6.4% in DCT arm (difference of -1.1 % (95% Confidence Interval -2.2% to -0.03%)), significantly lower than the non-inferiority margin of 1.9%.124,010 valid LFD results were reported from 20,795 (79.6%) DCT participants with 1,132 (5.4%) reporting a positive result. Interpretation: DCT with 24-hour exemption from self-isolation for essential activities appears to be non-inferior to self-isolation.Interpretation: DCT with 24-hour exemption from self-isolation for essential activities appears to be non-inferior to self-isolation.<br/