1
|
Smith LE, Potts HWW, Amlȏt R, Fear NT, Michie S, Rubin GJ. Corrigendum to 'Tiered restrictions for COVID-19 in England: Knowledge, motivation and self-reported behaviour' [Public Health 204 (2022) 33-39]. Public Health 2022; 209:1-3. [PMID: 35738175 PMCID: PMC9212342 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2022.05.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- L E Smith
- King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, UK.
| | - H W W Potts
- University College London, Institute of Health Informatics, UK
| | - R Amlȏt
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, UK; UK Health Security Agency, Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, UK
| | - N T Fear
- King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, UK; King's Centre for Military Health Research and Academic Department of Military Mental Health, UK
| | - S Michie
- University College London, Centre for Behaviour Change, UK
| | - G J Rubin
- King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Smith LE, Potts HWW, Amlȏt R, Fear NT, Michie S, Rubin GJ. Do members of the public think they should use lateral flow tests (LFT) or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests when they have COVID-19-like symptoms? The COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses study. Public Health 2021; 198:260-262. [PMID: 34487869 PMCID: PMC8316130 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.07.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2021] [Accepted: 07/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to investigate public use of lateral flow tests (LFT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests when experiencing key COVID-19 symptoms. Study design In this study, data from two waves of a cross-sectional nationally representative online survey (data collected 1 and 2 June, and 14 and 15 June 2021; n = 3665 adults aged ≥18 years living in England or Scotland) were used. 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 / fever; new, continuous cough; loss of sense of smell; loss of taste), we also describe the uptake of testing, if any. Results Ten percent of respondents thought Government guidance stated that they should take an LFT if symptomatic, whereas 18% of people thought that they should take a PCR test; 60% of people 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L E Smith
- Psychological Medicine, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK.
| | - H W W Potts
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, Institute of Health Informatics, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA, UK
| | - R Amlȏt
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK; Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, Public Health England, Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 0JG, UK
| | - N T Fear
- Psychological Medicine, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK; Academic Department of Military Mental Health, King's Centre for Military Health Research, London, UK
| | - S Michie
- Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, Centre for Behaviour Change, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK
| | - G J Rubin
- Psychological Medicine, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Michie S, Potts HWW, West R, Amlȏt R, Smith LE, Fear NT, Rubin GJ. Factors associated with non-essential workplace attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK in early 2021: evidence from cross-sectional surveys. Public Health 2021; 198:106-113. [PMID: 34411993 PMCID: PMC8463075 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2021] [Revised: 07/01/2021] [Accepted: 07/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Objectives Working from home where possible is important in reducing the spread of COVID-19. In early 2021, a quarter of people in England who believed they could work entirely from home reported attending their workplace. To inform interventions to reduce this, this study examined associated factors. Study design Data from the ongoing COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses survey series of nationally representative samples of people in the UK aged 16+ years in January–February 2021 were used. Methods The study sample was 1422 respondents who reported that they could work completely from home. The outcome measure was self-reported workplace attendance at least once during the preceding week. Factors of interest were analysed in three blocks: 1) sociodemographic variables, 2) variables relating to respondents’ circumstances and 3) psychological variables. Results 26.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 24.5%–29.1%) of respondents reported having attended their workplace at least once in the preceding week. Sociodemographic variables and living circumstances significantly independently predicted non-essential workplace attendance: male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.33–2.58); dependent children in the household (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.17–2.32); financial hardship (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.08–1.21); lower socio-economic grade (C2DE; OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.19–2.53); working in sectors such as health or social care (OR = 4.18, 95% CI = 2.56–6.81), education and childcare (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.45–4.14) and key public service (OR = 3.78, 95% CI = 1.83–7.81) and having been vaccinated (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.33–3.24). Conclusions Non-essential workplace attendance in the UK in early 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly independently associated with a range of sociodemographic variables and personal circumstances. Having been vaccinated, financial hardship, socio-economic grade C2DE, having a dependent child at home and working in certain key sectors were associated with higher likelihood of workplace attendance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Michie
- University College London, Centre for Behaviour Change, United Kingdom.
| | - H W W Potts
- University College London, Institute of Health Informatics, United Kingdom
| | - R West
- University College London, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, United Kingdom
| | - R Amlȏt
- Public Health England, Behavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, United Kingdom; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, United Kingdom; Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, United Kingdom
| | - L E Smith
- King's College London, Department of Psychological Medicine, United Kingdom; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, United Kingdom
| | - N T Fear
- King's College London, Department of Psychological Medicine, United Kingdom; King's College London, King's Centre for Military Health Research and Academic Department of Military Mental Health, United Kingdom
| | - G J Rubin
- King's College London, Department of Psychological Medicine, United Kingdom; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Smith LE, Amlȏt R, Lambert H, Oliver I, Robin C, Yardley L, Rubin GJ. Factors associated with adherence to self-isolation and lockdown measures in the UK: a cross-sectional survey. Public Health 2020; 187:41-52. [PMID: 32898760 PMCID: PMC7474581 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.07.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 118] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2020] [Revised: 07/20/2020] [Accepted: 07/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate factors associated with adherence to self-isolation and lockdown measures due to COVID-19 in the UK. STUDY DESIGN Online cross-sectional survey. METHODS Data were collected between 6th and 7th May 2020. A total of 2240 participants living in the UK aged 18 years or older were recruited from YouGov's online research panel. RESULTS A total of 217 people (9.7%) reported that they or someone in their household had symptoms of COVID-19 (cough or high temperature/fever) in the last 7 days. Of these people, 75.1% had left the home in the last 24 h (defined as non-adherent). Men were more likely to be non-adherent, as were people who were less worried about COVID-19, and who perceived a smaller risk of catching COVID-19. Adherence was associated with having received help from someone outside your household. Results should be taken with caution as there was no evidence for associations when controlling for multiple analyses. Of people reporting no symptoms in the household, 24.5% had gone out shopping for non-essentials in the last week (defined as non-adherent). Factors associated with non-adherence and with a higher total number of outings in the last week included decreased perceived effectiveness of government 'lockdown' measures, decreased perceived severity of COVID-19 and decreased estimates of how many other people were following lockdown rules. Having received help was associated with better adherence. CONCLUSIONS Adherence to self-isolation is poor. As we move into a new phase of contact tracing and self-isolation, it is essential that adherence is improved. Communications should aim to increase knowledge about actions to take when symptomatic or if you have been in contact with a possible COVID-19 case. They should also emphasise the risk of catching and spreading COVID-19 when out and about and the effectiveness of preventative measures. Using volunteer networks effectively to support people in isolation may promote adherence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L E Smith
- King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, UK.
| | - R Amlȏt
- Public Health England, Behavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, UK
| | - H Lambert
- University of Bristol, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, UK
| | - I Oliver
- Public Health England, Field Epidemiology, Field Service, National Infection Service, Bristol, UK
| | - C Robin
- Public Health England, Field Epidemiology, Field Service, National Infection Service, Liverpool, UK
| | - L Yardley
- University of Bristol, School of Psychological Sciences, UK
| | - G J Rubin
- King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, UK
| |
Collapse
|