Facilitators and barriers to engagement with contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks: A rapid review of the evidence

BACKGROUND: Until 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. OBJECTIVE: To identify facilitators and barriers to uptake of, and engagement with, contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks. METHOD: A 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 FINDINGS: Four 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. CONCLUSIONS: By 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

Applying principles of behaviour change to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission

Human behaviour is central to transmission of SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and changing behaviour is crucial to preventing transmission in the absence of pharmaceutical interventions. Isolation and social distancing measures, including edicts to stay at home, have been brought into place across the globe to reduce transmission of the virus, but at a huge cost to individuals and society. In addition to these measures, we urgently need effective interventions to increase adherence to behaviours that individuals in communities can enact to protect themselves and others: use of tissues to catch expelled droplets from coughs or sneezes, use of face masks as appropriate, hand-washing on all occasions when required, disinfecting objects and surfaces, physical distancing, and not touching one’s eyes, nose or mouth. There is an urgent need for direct evidence to inform development of such interventions, but it is possible to make a start by applying behavioural science methods and models

Adherence to the test, trace, and isolate system in the UK: results from 37 nationally representative surveys

Objective: To investigate rates of adherence to the UK’s test, trace, and isolate system over the initial 11 months of the covid-19 pandemic. Design: Series of cross sectional online surveys. Setting: 37 nationally representative surveys in the UK, 2 March 2020 to 27 January 2021. Participants: 74 697 responses from 53 880 people living in the UK, aged 16 years or older (37 survey waves, about 2000 participants in each wave). Main outcome measures: Identification of the main symptoms of covid-19 (cough, high temperature or fever, and loss of sense of smell or taste), self-reported adherence to self-isolation if symptoms were present and intention to self-isolate if symptoms were to develop, requesting a test for covid-19 if symptoms were present and intention to request a test if symptoms were to develop, and intention to share details of close contacts. Results: Only 51.5% of participants (95% confidence interval 51.0% to 51.9%, n=26 030/50  570) identified the main symptoms of covid-19; the corresponding values in the most recent wave of data collection (25-27 January 2021) were 50.8% (48.6% to 53.0%, n=1019/2007). Across all waves, duration adjusted adherence to full self-isolation was 42.5% (95% confidence interval 39.7% to 45.2%, n=515/1213); in the most recent wave of data collection (25-27 January 2021), it was 51.8% (40.8% to 62.8%, n=43/83). Across all waves, requesting a test for covid-19 was 18.0% (95% confidence interval 16.6% to 19.3%, n=552/3068), increasing to 22.2% (14.6% to 29.9%, n=26/117) from 25 to 27 January. Across all waves, intention to share details of close contacts was 79.1% (95% confidence interval 78.8% to 79.5%, n=36 145/45 680), increasing to 81.9% (80.1% to 83.6%, n=1547/1890) from 25 to 27 January. Non-adherence was associated with being male, younger age, having a dependent child in the household, lower socioeconomic grade, greater financial hardship during the pandemic, and working in a key sector. Conclusions: Levels of adherence to test, trace, and isolate are low, although some improvement has occurred over time. Practical support and financial reimbursement are likely to improve adherence. Targeting messaging and policies to men, younger age groups, and key workers might also be necessary

Do members of the public think they should use lateral flow tests or PCR tests when they have COVID-19-like symptoms? The COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses [CORSAIR] study

OBJECTIVES: To investigate public use of lateral flow test [LFT] or polymerase chain reaction [PCR] test when experiencing key COVID-19 symptoms. STUDY DESIGN: Two waves of a cross-sectional nationally representative online survey (data collected 1-2 June and 14-15 June 2021; n=3665 adults aged 18 years or over living in England or Scotland). METHODS: We report data investigating which type of test, if any, the public think Government guidance asks people to use if they have COVID-19 symptoms. In people with key COVID-19 symptoms (high temperature, cough, loss of sense of taste or smell), we also describe uptake of testing, if any. RESULTS: 10% of respondents thought Government guidance stated that they should take an LFT if symptomatic, while 18% of people thought that should take a PCR test; 60% thought they should take both types of test (12% did not select either option). In people who were symptomatic, 32% reported taking a test to confirm whether they had COVID-19. Of these, 53% reported taking a PCR test and 44% reported taking an LFT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite Government guidance stating that anyone with key COVID-19 symptoms should complete a PCR test, a significant percentage of the population use LFT tests when symptomatic. Communications should emphasise the superiority of, and need for, PCR tests in people with symptoms

Holding a stigmatizing attitude at the start of the COVID-19 outbreak: A cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence of a stigmatizing attitude towards people of Chinese origin at the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK population and investigate factors associated with holding the stigmatizing attitude. DESIGN: Online cross-sectional survey conducted 10-13 February 2020 (n = 2006, people aged 16 years or over and living in the UK). METHODS: We asked participants to what extent they agreed it was best to avoid areas heavily populated by Chinese people because of the COVID-19 outbreak. Survey materials also asked about: worry, perceived risk, knowledge, information receipt, perception of government response to COVID-19, and personal characteristics. We ran binary logistic regressions to investigate associations between holding a stigmatizing attitude, personal characteristics, and psychological and contextual factors. RESULTS: 26.1% people (95% CI 24.2-28.0%, n = 524/2006) agreed it was best to avoid areas heavily populated by Chinese people. Holding a stigmatizing attitude was associated with greater worry about COVID-19, greater perceived risk of COVID-19, and poorer knowledge about COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large percentage of the UK public endorsed avoiding areas in the UK heavily populated by people of Chinese origin. This attitude was associated with greater worry about, and perceived risk of, the COVID-19 outbreak as well as poorer knowledge about COVID-19. At the start of future novel infectious disease outbreaks, proactive communications from official sources should provide context and facts to reduce uncertainty and challenge stigmatizing attitudes, to minimize harms to affected communities

COVID-19 and Ventilation in the Home; Investigating Peoples’ Perceptions and Self-Reported Behaviour (the COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses [CORSAIR] Study)

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

The effect of media reporting on public worry during the swine flu outbreak

Background: The first lines of defence against the swine flu pandemic of 2009 were behavioural, for example improving public hand hygiene. Mass communication, through government advertising and via the media, offers the potential to promote recommended behaviours, but are these communications effective and are there dangers of scaremongering? Objectives: To assess whether reporting or advertising affected public perceptions of the swine flu outbreak. Methods: Thirty-six weekly telephone surveys were conducted in the UK during the outbreak (total n = 38,182), each using a new, randomly selected, sample of the population. Outcome measures included respondents’ ratings of their worry about the risk of catching swine flu, satisfaction with the amount of information available, perceived Government preparedness, perceiving that ‘too much fuss’ had been made about swine flu, and willingness to have a flu vaccine. Predictor variables included the total amount of media coverage relating to swine flu and the severity of the outbreak at the time of each survey. Additional questions in the first five surveys (early May) also covered other behavioural outcomes. Results: Worry fluctuated over the course of the pandemic, and was associated with the amount of media coverage (partial r = 0.52, p < 0.001). However, this effect did not persist beyond the first summer wave of cases. During the early stages of the outbreak, exposure to media coverage and adverts was associated with lower worry in path analyses, and with higher levels of recommended behaviours, in part through the perceived higher efficacy of these behaviours. Conclusions: Worrying about public health incidents has been shown to predict adaptive behavioural changes among the public. Finding ways to keep a pandemic in the news may help to maintain such changes. Perceived efficacy is another channel to promote such changes. Concerns about media scaremongering in the initial period were unproven

Reassuring and managing patients with concerns about swine flu: Qualitative interviews with callers to NHS Direct

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During the early stages of the 2009 swine flu (influenza H1N1) outbreak, the large majority of patients who contacted the health services about the illness did not have it. In the UK, the NHS Direct telephone service was used by many of these patients. We used qualitative interviews to identify the main reasons why people approached NHS Direct with concerns about swine flu and to identify aspects of their contact which were reassuring, using a framework approach.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>33 patients participated in semi-structured interviews. All patients had telephoned NHS Direct between 11 and 14 May with concerns about swine flu and had been assessed as being unlikely to have the illness.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Reasons for seeking advice about swine flu included: the presence of unexpectedly severe flu-like symptoms; uncertainties about how one can catch swine flu; concern about giving it to others; pressure from friends or employers; and seeking 'peace of mind.' Most participants found speaking to NHS Direct reassuring or useful. Helpful aspects included: having swine flu ruled out; receiving an alternative explanation for symptoms; clarification on how swine flu is transmitted; and the perceived credibility of NHS Direct. No-one reported anything that had increased their anxiety and only one participant subsequently sought additional advice about swine flu from elsewhere.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Future major incidents involving other forms of chemical, biological or radiological hazards may also cause large numbers of unexposed people to seek health advice. Our data suggest that providing telephone triage and information is helpful in such instances, particularly where advice can be given via a trusted, pre-existing service.</p

Training peers to treat Ebola centre workers with anxiety and depression in Sierra Leone

Background: Following the 2014 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa, the UK Department for International Development funded South London and Maudsley National Health Service (NHS) to develop a psychological intervention that ex-Ebola Treatment Centre (ETC) staff could be trained to deliver to their peers to improve mental health in Sierra Leone. / Aim: The two key aims were to assess the feasibility of training a national team to deliver a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)–based group intervention, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall intervention within this population. / Methods: UK clinicians travelled to Sierra Leone to train a small team of ex-ETC staff in a three-phased CBT-based intervention. Standardised clinical measures, as well as bespoke measures, were applied with participants through the intervention to assess changes in mental health symptomology, and the effectiveness of the intervention. / Results: The results found improvements across all factors of mental health in the bespoke measure from phase 1 to phase 3. Additionally, the majority of standardised clinical measures showed improvements between phase 2 and the start of phase 3, and pre- and post-phase 3. / Conclusion: Overall, the findings suggest that it is possible to train staff from ETCs to deliver effective CBT interventions to peers. The implications of these results are discussed, including suggestions for future research and clinical intervention implementation within this population. The limitations of this research are also addressed