1
|
Smith LE, West R, Potts HWW, Amlôt R, Fear NT, Rubin GJ, Michie S. Factors associated with wearing a facemask in shops in England following removal of a legal requirement to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic. Br J Health Psychol 2024; 29:3-19. [PMID: 37537895 DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12684] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2023] [Revised: 05/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We aimed to identify psychological factors associated with the use of facemasks in shops in England following removal of legal requirements to do so, and to compare associations with and without legal restrictions. DESIGN Repeated cross-sectional online surveys (n ≈ 2000 adults) between August 2020 and April 2022 (68,716 responses from 45,682 participants) using quota sampling. METHODS The outcome measure was whether those who had visited a shop for essentials in the previous seven days reported always having worn a facemask versus sometimes or not at all. Psychological predictor variables included worry, perceived risk and severity of COVID-19 and the perceived effectiveness of facemasks. Socio-demographic variables and measures of clinical vulnerability were also measured. For the period following removal of legal restrictions, multivariable regression was used to assess associations between the primary outcome variable and predictors adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical vulnerability measures. The analysis was repeated including interactions between psychological predictors and presence versus absence of legal restrictions. RESULTS Worry about COVID-19, beliefs about risks and severity of COVID-19 and effectiveness of facemasks were substantially and independently associated with the use of facemasks. Removal of legal obligations to wear facemasks was associated with a 25% decrease in wearing facemasks and stronger associations between psychological predictors and wearing facemasks. CONCLUSIONS Legal obligations increase rates of wearing a facemask. Psychological factors associated with wearing a facemask could be targets for interventions aiming to alter rates of wearing a facemask. These interventions may be more effective when there are no legal obligations to wear a face covering in place.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise E Smith
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, London, UK
| | - Robert West
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Henry W W Potts
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK
| | - Richard Amlôt
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, London, UK
- Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK
| | - Nicola T Fear
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
- King's Centre for Military Health Research and Academic Department of Military Mental Health, King's College London, London, UK
| | - G James Rubin
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, London, UK
| | - Susan Michie
- Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kirwan PD, Hall VJ, Foulkes S, Otter AD, Munro K, Sparkes D, Howells A, Platt N, Broad J, Crossman D, Norman C, Corrigan D, Jackson CH, Cole M, Brown CS, Atti A, Islam J, Presanis AM, Charlett A, De Angelis D, Hopkins S. Effect of second booster vaccinations and prior infection against SARS-CoV-2 in the UK SIREN healthcare worker cohort. THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH. EUROPE 2024; 36:100809. [PMID: 38111727 PMCID: PMC10727938 DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100809] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2023] [Revised: 11/20/2023] [Accepted: 11/20/2023] [Indexed: 12/20/2023]
Abstract
Background The protection of fourth dose mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is relevant to current global policy decisions regarding ongoing booster roll-out. We aimed to estimate the effect of fourth dose vaccination, prior infection, and duration of PCR positivity in a highly-vaccinated and largely prior-COVID-19 infected cohort of UK healthcare workers. Methods Participants underwent fortnightly PCR and regular antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 and completed symptoms questionnaires. A multi-state model was used to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection from a fourth dose compared to a waned third dose, with protection from prior infection and duration of PCR positivity jointly estimated. Findings 1298 infections were detected among 9560 individuals under active follow-up between September 2022 and March 2023. Compared to a waned third dose, fourth dose VE was 13.1% (95% CI 0.9 to 23.8) overall; 24.0% (95% CI 8.5 to 36.8) in the first 2 months post-vaccination, reducing to 10.3% (95% CI -11.4 to 27.8) and 1.7% (95% CI -17.0 to 17.4) at 2-4 and 4-6 months, respectively. Relative to an infection >2 years ago and controlling for vaccination, 63.6% (95% CI 46.9 to 75.0) and 29.1% (95% CI 3.8 to 43.1) greater protection against infection was estimated for an infection within the past 0-6, and 6-12 months, respectively. A fourth dose was associated with greater protection against asymptomatic infection than symptomatic infection, whilst prior infection independently provided more protection against symptomatic infection, particularly if the infection had occurred within the previous 6 months. Duration of PCR positivity was significantly lower for asymptomatic compared to symptomatic infection. Interpretation Despite rapid waning of protection, vaccine boosters remain an important tool in responding to the dynamic COVID-19 landscape; boosting population immunity in advance of periods of anticipated pressure, such as surging infection rates or emerging variants of concern. Funding UK Health Security Agency, Medical Research Council, NIHR HPRU Oxford, Bristol, and others.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter D. Kirwan
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - David Crossman
- School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Ana Atti
- UK Health Security Agency, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | - Daniela De Angelis
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
- UK Health Security Agency, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Smith LE, Potts HW, Brainard J, May T, Oliver I, Amlôt R, Yardley L, Rubin GJ. Did mpox knowledge, attitudes and beliefs affect intended behaviour in the general population and men who are gay, bisexual and who have sex with men? An online cross-sectional survey in the UK. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e070882. [PMID: 37827743 PMCID: PMC10583036 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070882] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2023] [Indexed: 10/14/2023] Open
Abstract
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<0.001). In the general population sample, intending to carry out protective behaviours was generally associated with being female, older, having less financial hardship, greater worry, higher perceived risk to others and higher perceived susceptibility to and severity of mpox (ps<0.001). There were fewer associations with behaviours in the Grindr sample, possibly due to reduced power. CONCLUSIONS GBMSM were more likely to intend to enact protective behaviours, except for self-isolation. This may reflect targeted public health efforts and engagement with this group. Associations with socioeconomic factors suggest that providing financial support may encourage people to engage with protective behaviours.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise E Smith
- Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Henry Ww Potts
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK
| | - Julii Brainard
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Tom May
- School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | | | - Lucy Yardley
- School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - G James Rubin
- Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Graham S, Tessier E, Stowe J, Bernal JL, Parker EPK, Nitsch D, Miller E, Andrews N, Walker JL, McDonald HI. Bias assessment of a test-negative design study of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness used in national policymaking. Nat Commun 2023; 14:3984. [PMID: 37414791 PMCID: PMC10325974 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-39674-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2022] [Accepted: 06/21/2023] [Indexed: 07/08/2023] Open
Abstract
National test-negative-case-control (TNCC) studies are used to monitor COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in the UK. A questionnaire was sent to participants from the first published TNCC COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness study conducted by the UK Health Security Agency, to assess for potential biases and changes in behaviour related to vaccination. The original study included symptomatic adults aged ≥70 years testing for COVID-19 between 08/12/2020 and 21/02/2021. A questionnaire was sent to cases and controls tested from 1-21 February 2021. In this study, 8648 individuals responded to the questionnaire (36.5% response). Using information from the questionnaire to produce a combined estimate that accounted for all potential biases decreased the original vaccine effectiveness estimate after two doses of BNT162b2 from 88% (95% CI: 79-94%) to 85% (95% CI: 68-94%). Self-reported behaviour demonstrated minimal evidence of riskier behaviour after vaccination. These findings offer reassurance to policy makers and clinicians making decisions based on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness TNCC studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie Graham
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
- UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation, London, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | - Dorothea Nitsch
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- UK Renal Registry, Bristol, UK
- Renal Unit, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Hertfordshire, UK
| | - Elizabeth Miller
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation, London, UK
| | - Nick Andrews
- UK Health Security Agency, London, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation, London, UK
| | - Jemma L Walker
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- UK Health Security Agency, London, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation, London, UK
| | - Helen I McDonald
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Smith LE, Potts HW, Amlôt R, Fear NT, Michie S, Rubin GJ. How has the emergence of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern influenced worry, perceived risk and behaviour in the UK? A series of cross-sectional surveys. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e061203. [PMID: 36038165 PMCID: PMC9437738 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2022] [Accepted: 08/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
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<0.001). Understanding of rules in England was varied, ranging between 10.3% and 91.9%, with people overestimating the stringency of the new rules. Rates of wearing a face covering and testing increased over time (p<0.001). Meeting up with people from another household decreased around the time of the announcement of Omicron (29 November to 1 December), but then returned to previous levels (p=0.002). Associations with protective behaviours were investigated using regression analyses. There was no evidence for significant associations between out-of-home activity and worry or perceived risk (COVID-19 generally or Omicron-specific, p≥0.004; Bonferroni adjustment p<0.002 applied). Engaging in highest risk social mixing and always wearing a face covering were associated with worry and perceived risk about COVID-19 (p≤0.001). Always wearing a face covering in shops was associated with having heard more about Omicron (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Almost 2 years into the COVID-19 outbreak, the emergence of a novel variant of concern only slightly influenced worry and perceived risk. The main protective behaviour (wearing a face covering) promoted by new guidance showed significant re-uptake, but other protective behaviours showed little or no change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise E Smith
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Henry Ww Potts
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK
| | - Richard Amlôt
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, London, UK
- Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, UK Health Security Agency, Salisbury, UK
| | - Nicola T Fear
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
- King's Centre for Military Health Research and Academic Department of Military Mental Health, King's College, London, UK
| | - Susan Michie
- Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK
| | - G James Rubin
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|