Evaluating Dual Process Decision-Making Along the PrEP Consumer Journey: New Insights for Supporting PrEP Use.

With the rise of new and emerging Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) modalities, greater attention is needed to better understand how people who could benefit from PrEP make decisions to initiate, stop, pause, or switch PrEP regimens. In this study we borrow from the field of consumer research to create a consumer-derived PrEP Consumer Journey Model that describes key decision-making touchpoints a PrEP consumer moves through within and outside of a clinical context. Using in-depth interviews (n = 29) with gay and bisexual men who have sex with men, we evaluate which system 1 (emotional) and system 2 (cognitive) attributes are used for decision-making at different touchpoints along the PrEP Consumer Journey. Our results suggest system 1 attributes, such as feeling protected, reducing anxiety, enhancing pleasure, social norms, and taking ownership over health were more salient when consumers moved from pre-contemplation to information gathering, as well as evaluating post-uptake experience. System 2 attributes, including cost, side effects, dosing schedule, and sexual frequency, were present throughout the PrEP Consumer Journey, but particularly influential in the information gathering stage and when pausing, switching, or opting out of PrEP. We contend the PrEP Consumer Journey, and our findings related to decision-making, can help orient medical providers to anticipated patient concerns around PrEP use and ultimately provide more supportive and engaging PrEP counseling and services.

UK Healthcare Workers' Experiences of Major System Change in Elective Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Reflections on Rapid Service Adaptation.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted the delivery of elective surgery in the United Kingdom. The majority of planned surgery was cancelled or postponed in March 2020 for the duration of the first wave of the pandemic. We investigated the experiences of staff responsible for delivering rapid changes to surgical services during the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom, with the aim of developing lessons for future major systems change (MSC). METHODS: Using a rapid qualitative study design, we conducted 25 interviews with frontline surgical staff during the first wave of the pandemic. Framework analysis was used to organise and interpret findings. RESULTS: Staff discussed positive and negative experiences of rapid service organisation. Clinician-led decision-making, the flexibility of individual staff and teams, and the opportunity to innovate service design were all seen as positive contributors to success in service adaptation. The negative aspects of rapid change were inconsistent guidance from national government and medical bodies, top-down decisions about when to cancel and restart surgery, the challenges of delivering emergency surgical care safely and the complexity of prioritising surgical cases when services re-started. CONCLUSION: Success in the rapid reorganisation of elective surgical services can be attributed to the flexibility and adaptability of staff. However, there was an absence of involvement of staff in wider system-level pandemic decision-making and competing guidance from national bodies. Involving staff in decisions about the organisation and delivery of MSC is essential for the sustainability of change processes.

Perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has set unprecedented demand on the healthcare workforce around the world. The UK has been one of the most affected countries in Europe. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) in relation to COVID-19 and care delivery models implemented to deal with the pandemic in the UK. METHODS: The study was designed as a rapid appraisal combining: (1) a review of UK healthcare policies (n=35 policies), (2) mass media and social media analysis of front-line staff experiences and perceptions (n=101 newspaper articles, n=1 46 000 posts) and (3) in-depth (telephone) interviews with front-line staff (n=30 interviews). The findings from all streams were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Limited personal protective equipment (PPE) and lack of routine testing created anxiety and distress and had a tangible impact on the workforce. When PPE was available, incorrect size and overheating complicated routine work. Lack of training for redeployed staff and the failure to consider the skills of redeployed staff for new areas were identified as problems. Positive aspects of daily work reported by HCWs included solidarity between colleagues, the establishment of well-being support structures and feeling valued by society. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted the importance of taking into consideration the experiences and concerns of front-line staff during a pandemic. Staff working in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic advocated clear and consistent guidelines, streamlined testing of HCWs, administration of PPE and acknowledgement of the effects of PPE on routine practice.