Between division and connection: a qualitative study of the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on social relationships in the United Kingdom.

Background: The first national COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom between March to July 2020 resulted in sudden and unprecedented disruptions to daily life. This study sought to understand the impact of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as social distancing and quarantine, on people's lived experiences, focusing on social connections and relationships. Methods: Data were generated through 20 in-depth online and telephone interviews, conducted between May and July 2020, and analysed using thematic analysis informed by an ecological framework. Results: Findings show that the use of NPIs impacted social relationships and sociality at every level, disrupting participant's sense of self; relationships with their partners, household members, neighbours, and communities; and polarising social and political views. However, experiences of personal meaning-making and reflection, and greater social connectedness, solidarity, and compassion - despite physical distance - were also common. Conclusions: Participant's lived experiences of the first UK lockdown underscore the interconnectedness of relationships at the individual, community and societal level and point towards the important role of trust, social cohesion, and connectedness in coping with pandemic stress and adversity. Where infectious disease prevention measures rupture sociality, support for social connection at every relational level is likely to help build resilience in light of ongoing COVID-19 restrictions

A network of empirical ethics teams embedded in research programmes across multiple sites: opportunities and challenges in contributing to COVID-19 research and responses

Covid-19 continues to teach the global community important lessons about preparedness for research and effective action to respond to emerging health threats.  We share the COVID-19 experiences of a pre-existing cross-site ethics network-the Global Health Bioethics Network-which brings together researchers and practitioners from Africa, Europe, and South east Asia. We describe the network and its members and activities, and the work-related opportunities and challenges we faced over a one-year period during the pandemic. We highlight the value of having strong and long-term empirical ethics networks embedded across diverse research institutions to be able to: 1) identify and share relevant ethics challenges and research questions and ways of ’doing research’; 2) work with key stakeholders to identify appropriate ways to contribute to the emerging health issue response – e.g. through ethics oversight, community engagement, and advisory roles at different levels; and 3) learn from each other and from diverse contexts to advocate for positive change at multiple levels. It is our view that being both embedded and long term offers particular opportunities in terms of deep institutional and contextual knowledge and relationships with and access to a wide range of stakeholders in place. Being networked offers opportunities to draw upon a wide range of expertise and perspectives operating at multiple levels, and to bring together internal and external perspectives (i.e. different positionalities). Long term funding means that the people and resources are in place and ready to respond in a timely way. However, many tensions and challenges remain, including difficulties in negotiating power and politics regarding roles that researchers and research institutions play in an emergency, and the position of empirical ethics activities in programmes of research more specifically. We discuss some of these tensions and challenges, and consider the implications for our own and similar networks in future

Economic and social impacts of COVID-19 and public health measures: results from an anonymous online survey in Thailand, Malaysia, the UK, Italy and Slovenia.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the impact of COVID-19 and public health measures on different social groups, we conducted a mixed-methods study in five countries ('SEBCOV-social, ethical and behavioural aspects of COVID-19'). Here, we report the results of the online survey. STUDY DESIGN AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall, 5058 respondents from Thailand, Malaysia, the UK, Italy and Slovenia completed the self-administered survey between May and June 2020. Poststratification weighting was applied, and associations between categorical variables assessed. Frequency counts and percentages were used to summarise categorical data. Associations between categorical variables were assessed using Pearson's χ2 test. Data were analysed in Stata 15.0 RESULTS: Among the five countries, Thai respondents reported having been most, and Slovenian respondents least, affected economically. The following factors were associated with greater negative economic impacts: being 18-24 years or 65 years or older; lower education levels; larger households; having children under 18 in the household and and having flexible/no income. Regarding social impact, respondents expressed most concern about their social life, physical health, mental health and well-being.There were large differences between countries in terms of voluntary behavioural change, and in compliance and agreement with COVID-19 restrictions. Overall, self-reported compliance was higher among respondents who self-reported a high understanding of COVID-19. UK respondents felt able to cope the longest and Thai respondents the shortest with only going out for essential needs or work. Many respondents reported seeing news perceived to be fake, the proportion varying between countries, with education level and self-reported levels of understanding of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that COVID-19 and public health measures have uneven economic and social impacts on people from different countries and social groups. Understanding the factors associated with these impacts can help to inform future public health interventions and mitigate their negative consequences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: TCTR20200401002

‘Labouring’ on the frontlines of global health research: mapping challenges experienced by frontline workers in Africa and Asia

Drawing on the reflections and discussions from a special session at the 2021 Global Health Bioethics Network summer school, this paper has summarised the key challenges faced by Frontline Workers (FWs) across research sites in Africa and Asia in performing the everyday ‘body work’ entailed in operationalising global health research. Using a ‘body work’ lens, we specifically explore and map key challenges that FWs face in Africa and Asia and the physical, social, ethical, emotional, and political labour involved in operationalising global health in these settings. The research encounter links with wider social and economic structures, and spatial dimensions and impacts on the FWs’ performance and well-being. Yet, FWs’ ‘body-work’ and the embedded emotions during the research encounter remain hidden and undervalued

"Like a wake-up call for humankind": Views, challenges, and coping strategies related to public health measures during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Thailand.

Following the first Thai COVID-19 case in January 2020, the Thai government introduced several non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in March 2020 (e.g., contact tracing, travel restrictions, closure of businesses, curfews, stay at home orders) to control COVID-19 transmissions. This study aimed to understand the views and experiences of a small number of Thai residents related to public health measures implemented during the first COVID-19 wave in Thailand. A total of 28 remote in-depth interviews with Thai residents (18-74 years old) were conducted between 8 May and 21 July 2020. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis based on the Framework Method. Our results describe participants' views, challenges, and coping strategies relating to COVID-19 restrictions. Most participants expressed support for the introduction of strict public health measures, while some criticized lacking enforcement or rational of certain measures. Participants identified four major challenges, namely financial hardship; social isolation and loneliness; stigma and shaming; and fear of COVID-19 infection. Strategies adopted to address these challenges included practical coping strategies (e.g., reducing risks and fear of COVID-19 infection; mitigating financial, social, and mental health impacts), and embedded socio-cultural ways of coping (e.g., turning to religion; practicing acceptance; kindness, generosity and sharing ('Namjai'); 'making merit' ('Tham-bun')). The challenges identified from this study, in particular the role of stigma and discrimination, may be relevant to other infectious disease outbreaks beyond COVID-19. Findings from this study underscore the need for policies and interventions that mitigate the negative impacts of NPIs on the public, particularly on vulnerable groups, and highlight the importance of considering socio-cultural context to support community resilience in times of crisis. Our findings remain relevant in light of low COVID-19 vaccine availability and the potential need to implement further public health restrictions in Thailand and elsewhere against COVID-19 or future infectious disease threats