Exploration of attitudes regarding uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccine hesitant adults in the UK: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to explore barriers and facilitators to uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to explore views and reactions to efforts to improve vaccine uptake among vaccine hesitant individuals. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people between the age of 18-29 years who had not had a COVID-19 vaccine, and those between 30 and 49 years who had not had a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: A total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose, and 35 had not been vaccinated. Participants described a willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe and to avoid restrictions. Barriers to uptake included: (1) perceived lack of need for COVID-19 vaccinations, (2) concerns about the efficacy of vaccinations, (3) concerns about safety, and (4) access issues. Uptake appeared to be influenced by age and health status, trust in government, and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may be viewed as coercive. CONCLUSION: Participants were hesitant, rather than opposed, and had questions about their need for, and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Young people did not consider themselves to be at risk of becoming ill from COVID-19, did not think the vaccination was effective in preventing transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted regarding possible long-term side-effects. Concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in government, and misunderstanding of science. To promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that explains the benefits of vaccination and addresses safety concerns more effectively. To overcome inertia in people with low levels of motivation to be vaccinated, appointments must be easily accessible.

A systematic review of observational methods used to quantify personal protective behaviours among members of the public during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the concordance between observational and self-report measures in infectious disease health protection.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quantity and quality of studies using an observational measure of behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to narratively describe the association between self-report and observational data for behaviours relevant to controlling an infectious disease outbreak. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, Publons, Scopus and the UK Health Security Agency behavioural science LitRep database from inception to 17th September 2021 for relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies which collected observational data of at least one of three health protective behaviours (hand hygiene, face covering use and maintaining physical distance from others ('social distancing') during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies where observational data were compared to self-report data in relation to any infectious disease were also included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We evaluated the quality of studies using the NIH quality assessment scale for observational studies, extracted data on sample size, setting and adherence to health protective behaviours, and synthesized results narratively. RESULTS: Of 27,279 published papers on COVID-19 relevant health protective behaviours that included one or more terms relating to hand hygiene, face covering and social distancing, we identified 48 studies that included an objective observational measure. Of these, 35 assessed face covering use, 17 assessed hand hygiene behaviour and seven assessed physical distancing. The general quality of these studies was good. When expanding the search to all infectious diseases, we included 21 studies that compared observational versus self-report data. These almost exclusively studied hand hygiene. The difference in outcomes was striking, with self-report over-estimating observed adherence by up to a factor of five in some settings. In only four papers did self-report match observational data in any domains. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their importance in controlling the pandemic, we found remarkably few studies assessing protective behaviours by observation, rather than self-report, though these studies tended to be of reasonably good quality. Observed adherence tends to be substantially lower than estimates obtained via self-report. Accurate assessment of levels of personal protective behaviour, and evaluation of interventions to increase this, would benefit from the use of observational methods.

A qualitative process analysis of daily contact testing as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed carrier of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: In July 2021, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to compare the effect on SARS-CoV-2 transmission of seven days of Daily Contact Testing (DCT) using Lateral Flow Test (LFT) and two Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests as an alternative to 10 days of standard self-isolation with one PCR, following close contact with a SARS-CoV-2 carrier. In this qualitative study, we used a nested process evaluation to aid interpretation of the trial and provide insight into factors influencing use of tests, understanding of test results, and how tests were used to inform behavioural decisions. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 60 participants (42 randomised to DCT and 18 randomised to self-isolation) who had been in close contact with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 carrier and had consented to take part in the trial. RESULTS: Data were organised into three overarching themes: (1) assessing the risks and benefits of DCT (2) use of testing during the study period and (3) future use of testing. Attitudes toward DCT as an alternative to self-isolation and behaviour during the testing period appeared to be informed by an assessment of the associated risks and benefits. Participants reported how important it was for them to avoid isolation, how necessary self-isolation was considered to be, and the ability of LFTs to detect infection. Behaviour during the testing period was modified to reduce risks and harms as much as possible. Testing was considered a potential compromise, reducing both risk of transmission and the negative impact of self-isolation, and was regarded as a way to return to normal. CONCLUSION: Participants in this study viewed DCT as a sensible, feasible, and welcome means of avoiding unnecessary self-isolation. Although negative LFTs provided reassurance, most people still restricted their activity as recommended. DCT was also highly valued by those in vulnerable households as a means of providing reassurance of the absence of infection and as an important means of detecting infection and prompting self-isolation when necessary.

A Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of a Digital Intervention to Promote Physical Activity in Older Adults.

PURPOSE: This study explored participant views of a web-based physical activity intervention for older adults and examined how they resonate with the key principles that guided intervention development. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were carried out with 52 older adults. A deductive qualitative analysis approach was taken, based around the intervention's key principles. RESULTS: Participants expressed mostly positive views of the intervention features, broadly confirming the appropriateness of the key principles, which were to: (a) encourage intrinsic motivation for physical activity, (b) minimize the risk of users receiving activity suggestions that are inappropriate or unsafe, (c) offer users choice regarding the activities they engage with and build confidence to undertake more activity, and (d) minimize the cognitive load and need to engage with the intervention website. The findings also identified ways in which content could be improved to further increase acceptability. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates how using the person-based approach has enabled the identification and implementation of features that older adults appreciate.

Why do hospital prescribers continue antibiotics when it is safe to stop? Results of a choice experiment survey.

BACKGROUND: Deciding whether to discontinue antibiotics at early review is a cornerstone of hospital antimicrobial stewardship practice worldwide. In England, this approach is described in government guidance ('Start Smart then Focus'). However, < 10% of hospital antibiotic prescriptions are discontinued at review, despite evidence that 20-30% could be discontinued safely. We aimed to quantify the relative importance of factors influencing prescriber decision-making at review. METHODS: We conducted an online choice experiment, a survey method to elicit preferences. Acute/general hospital prescribers in England were asked if they would continue or discontinue antibiotic treatment in 15 hypothetical scenarios. Scenarios were described according to six attributes, including patients' presenting symptoms and whether discontinuation would conflict with local prescribing guidelines. Respondents' choices were analysed using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred respondents completed the survey. Respondents were more likely to continue antibiotics when discontinuation would 'strongly conflict' with local guidelines (average marginal effect (AME) on the probability of continuing + 0.194 (p < 0.001)), when presenting symptoms more clearly indicated antibiotics (AME of urinary tract infection symptoms + 0.173 (p < 0.001) versus unclear symptoms) and when patients had severe frailty/comorbidities (AME = + 0.101 (p < 0.001)). Respondents were less likely to continue antibiotics when under no external pressure to continue (AME = - 0.101 (p < 0.001)). Decisions were also influenced by the risks to patient health of continuing/discontinuing antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines that conflict with antibiotic discontinuation (e.g. pre-specify fixed durations) may discourage safe discontinuation at review. In contrast, guidelines conditional on patient factors/treatment response could help hospital prescribers discontinue antibiotics if diagnostic information suggesting they are no longer needed is available.

Evaluating the Content Validity of Four Performance Outcome Measures in Patients with Elective Hip Replacements and Hip Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the content validity of performance outcome (PerfO) measures for use with patients undergoing hip fracture (HF) surgery and elective total hip replacement (eTHR). METHODS: This study was a substudy of a broader evaluation of measurement properties of PerfO measures. The PerfO measures assessed were timed up and go (TUG), four-step stair climb (4SC), long stair climb (LSC), and repeated chair stand (RCS). For this substudy, HF and eTHR participants were interviewed to evaluate the relevance and difficulty of each PerfO measure. Qualitative analysis was conducted on interview transcripts, and summaries of coded data were produced to assess saturation. RESULTS: All 18 HF participants related the PerfO measures (TUG, 4SC, and RSC) to activities they completed in daily life, with slight variations in some specific aspects. For the eight eTHR participants, the correspondence between the PerfO measures (TUG, 4SC, and LSC) and activities in daily life varied: all participants saw similarity in the movements for the TUG; most undertook short stair climbs in daily life, but most did not regularly undertake LSC in daily life. Nevertheless, all HF and eTHR participants reported that the PerfO measures were relevant and had a level of difficulty similar to daily activities. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes novel methods that adapt US regulatory guidance for patient-reported outcome measures to the evaluation of PerfO measures. A structured approach was used to explore specific details of each measure and correspondence to everyday life. This study demonstrates how content validity of PerfO measures can be meaningfully assessed.

Increasing the intent to receive a pandemic influenza vaccination: Testing the impact of theory-based messages.

OBJECTIVE: Vaccination is an effective preventive measure to reduce influenza transmission, especially important in a pandemic. Despite the messages encouraging vaccination during the last pandemic, uptake remained low (37.6% in clinical risk groups). This study investigated the effect of different types of messages regarding length, content type, and framing on vaccination intention. METHOD: An online experiment was conducted in February 2015. A representative sample of 1424 people living in England read a mock newspaper article about a novel influenza pandemic before being randomised to one of four conditions: standard Department of Health (DoH) (long message) and three brief theory-based messages - an abridged version of the standard DoH and two messages additionally targeting pandemic influenza severity and vaccination benefits (framed as risk-reducing or health-enhancing, respectively). Intention to be vaccinated and potential mediators were measured. RESULTS: The shortened DoH message increased vaccination intention more than the longer one, by increasing perceived susceptibility, anticipated regret and perceived message personal relevance while lowering perceived costs, despite the longer one being rated as slightly more credible. Intention to be vaccinated was not improved by adding information on severity and benefits, and the health-enhancing message was not more effective than the risk-reducing. CONCLUSION: A briefer message resulted in greater intention to be vaccinated, whereas emphasising the severity of pandemic influenza and the benefits of vaccination did not. Future campaigns should consider using brief theoretically-based messages, targeting knowledge about influenza and precautionary measures, perceived susceptibility to pandemic influenza, and the perceived efficacy and reduced costs of vaccination.

Communicating with the public following radiological terrorism: results from a series of focus groups and national surveys in Britain and Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Incidents involving the exposure of large numbers of people to radiological material can have serious consequences for those affected, their community and wider society. In many instances, the psychological effects of these incidents have the greatest impact. People fear radiation and even incidents which result in little or no actual exposure have the potential to cause widespread anxiety and behavior change. The aim of this study was to assess public intentions, beliefs and information needs in the UK and Germany in response to a hidden radiological exposure device. By assessing how the public is likely to react to such events, strategies for more effective crisis and risk communication can be developed and designed to address any knowledge gaps, misperceptions and behavioral responses that are contrary to public health advice. METHODS: This study had three stages. The first stage consisted of focus groups which identified perceptions of and reactions to a covert radiological device. The incident was introduced to participants using a series of mock newspaper and broadcast injects to convey the evolving scenario. The outcomes of these focus groups were used to inform national telephone surveys, which quantified intended behaviors and assessed what perceptions were correlated with these behaviors. Focus group and survey results were used to develop video and leaflet communication interventions, which were then evaluated in a second round of focus groups. RESULTS: In the first two stages, misperceptions about the likelihood and routes of exposure were associated with higher levels of worry and greater likelihood of engaging in behaviors that might be detrimental to ongoing public health efforts. The final focus groups demonstrated that both types of misunderstanding are amenable to change following targeted communication. CONCLUSION: Should terrorists succeed in placing a hidden radiological device in a public location, then health agencies may find that it is easier to communicate effectively with the public if they explicitly and clearly discuss the mechanisms through which someone could be affected by the radiation and the known geographical spread of any risk. Messages which explain how the risk from a hidden radiological device "works" should be prepared and tested in advance so that they can be rapidly deployed if the need arises.

The impact of "freedom day" on COVID-19 health protective behaviour in England: An observational study of hand hygiene, face covering use and physical distancing in public spaces pre and post the relaxing of restrictions.

Objectives: To study the prevalence of COVID-19 health protective behaviours before and after rules eased in England on the 19th July 2021. Design: Observational study pre (12th-18th July) and post (26th July-1st August) 19th July, and a cross-sectional online survey (26th to 27th July). Setting: Observations occurred in supermarkets (n = 10), train stations (n = 10), bus stops (n = 10), a coach station (n = 1) and a London Underground station (n = 1). The survey recruited a nationally representative sample. Participants: All adults entering the observed locations during a one-hour period (n = 3819 pre- and n = 2948 post-19th July). In the online survey, 1472 respondents reported having been shopping for groceries/visited a pharmacy and 566 reported having used public transport or having been in a taxi/minicab in the last week. Main outcome measures: We observed whether people wore a face covering, maintained distance from others and cleaned their hands. We investigated self-reports of wearing a face covering while in shops or using public transport. Results: In most locations observed, the proportion of people wearing face coverings, cleaning the hands and maintaining physical distance declined post 19th July. Pre 19th July, 70.2% (95% CI 68.7 to 71.7%) of people were observed to be wearing a face covering versus 55.8% (54.2 to 57.9%) post 19th July. Equivalent rates for physical distancing were 40.9% (39.0 to 42.8%) versus 29.5% (27.4 to 31.7%), and for hand hygiene were 4.4% (3.8 to 5.1%) versus 3.9% (3.2 to 4.6%). Self-reports of "always" wearing face coverings were broadly similar to observed rates. Conclusions: Adherence to protective behaviours was sub-optimal and declined during the relaxation of restrictions, despite appeals to exercise caution. Self-reports of "always" wearing a face covering in specific locations appear valid.

Antibiotic review kit for hospitals (ARK-Hospital): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitals depend on prescribers taking decisions to stop unnecessary antibiotic use. There is scarce evidence for how to support these decisions. We evaluated a multifaceted behaviour change intervention (ie, the antibiotic review kit) designed to reduce antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients by increasing appropriate decisions to stop antibiotics at clinical review. METHODS: We performed a stepped-wedge, cluster (hospital)-randomised controlled trial using computer-generated sequence randomisation of eligible hospitals in seven calendar-time blocks in the UK. Hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they admitted adult non-elective general or medical inpatients, had a local representative to champion the intervention, and could provide the required study data. Hospital clusters were randomised to an implementation date occurring at 1-2 week intervals, and the date was concealed until 12 weeks before implementation, when local preparations were designed to start. The intervention effect was assessed using data from pseudonymised routine electronic health records, ward-level antibiotic dispensing, Clostridioides difficile tests, prescription audits, and an implementation process evaluation. Co-primary outcomes were monthly antibiotic defined daily doses per adult acute general medical admission (hospital-level, superiority) and all-cause mortality within 30 days of admission (patient level, non-inferiority margin of 5%). Outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, excluding sites that withdrew before implementation). Intervention effects were assessed by use of interrupted time series analyses within each site, estimating overall effects through random-effects meta-analysis, with heterogeneity across prespecified potential modifiers assessed by use of meta-regression. This trial is completed and is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN12674243. FINDINGS: 58 hospital organisations expressed an interest in participating. Three pilot sites implemented the intervention between Sept 25 and Nov 20, 2017. 43 further sites were randomised to implement the intervention between Feb 12, 2018, and July 1, 2019, and seven sites withdrew before implementation. 39 sites were followed up for at least 14 months. Adjusted estimates showed reductions in total antibiotic defined daily doses per acute general medical admission (-4·8% per year, 95% CI -9·1 to -0·2) following the intervention. Among 7 160 421 acute general medical admissions, the ARK intervention was associated with an immediate change of -2·7% (95% CI -5·7 to 0·3) and sustained change of 3·0% (-0·1 to 6·2) in adjusted 30-day mortality. INTERPRETATION: The antibiotic review kit intervention resulted in sustained reductions in antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients. The weak, inconsistent intervention effects on mortality are probably explained by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals should use the antibiotic review kit to reduce antibiotic overuse. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

What influences whether parents recognise COVID-19 symptoms, request a test and self-isolate: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Using test, trace and isolate systems can help reduce the spread of COVID-19. Parents have the additional responsibility of using these systems for themselves and acting on behalf of their children to help control COVID-19. We explored factors associated with the use of England's NHS Test and Trace service among parents of school-aged children. METHODS: One-to-one telephone interviews with parents (n = 18) of school-aged (4 to 18 years) children living in England between 30 November to 11 December 2020. Data were explored using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes and eight sub-themes emerged. In terms of recognising symptoms of COVID-19, parents needed prompting before recalling the main symptoms described by the NHS. Parents suggested several factors relating to the nature of the symptom(s) and contextual information that might lead to or prevent them from seeking a test. Although parents supported symptomatic testing and described trusting official sources of information (e.g., Government and NHS websites). However, some concerns were raised regarding the accuracy of test results, safety at testing centres and logistics of testing but none of the concerns appeared to prevent engagement with testing. Parents perceived adherence to testing and self-isolation as pro-social behaviour, although family resources and circumstances impacted their ability to adhere fully. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified several barriers to parents using NHS Test and Trace as needed. Information about the eligibility of testing (main symptoms of COVID-19 and the age of eligibility) needs to be more precise and resources provided to enable families to adhere to self-isolation if the efficiency of test, trace and isolate systems is to be optimised.

Using nasal sprays to prevent respiratory tract infections: a qualitative study of online consumer reviews and primary care patient interviews.

OBJECTIVES: Nasal sprays could be a promising approach to preventing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). This study explored lay people's perceptions and experiences of using nasal sprays to prevent RTIs to identify barriers and facilitators to their adoption and continued use. DESIGN: Qualitative research. Study 1 thematically analysed online consumer reviews of an RTI prevention nasal spray. Study 2 interviewed patients about their reactions to and experiences of a digital intervention that promotes and supports nasal spray use for RTI prevention (reactively: at 'first signs' of infection and preventatively: following possible/probable exposure to infection). Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: Primary care, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 407 online customer reviews. 13 purposively recruited primary care patients who had experienced recurrent infections and/or had risk factors for severe infections. RESULTS: Both studies identified various factors that might influence nasal spray use including: high motivation to avoid RTIs, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; fatalistic views about RTIs; beliefs about alternative prevention methods; the importance of personal recommendation; perceived complexity and familiarity of nasal sprays; personal experiences of spray success or failure; tolerable and off-putting side effects; concerns about medicines; and the nose as unpleasant and unhygienic. CONCLUSIONS: People who suffer disruptive, frequent or severe RTIs or who are vulnerable to RTIs are interested in using a nasal spray for prevention. They also have doubts and concerns and may encounter problems. Some of these may be reduced or eliminated by providing nasal spray users with information and advice that addresses these concerns or helps people overcome difficulties.

Parallel randomized controlled feasibility trials of the "Active Brains" digital intervention to protect cognitive health in adults aged 60-85.

Introduction: Multidomain interventions to address modifiable risk factors for dementia are promising, but require more cost-effective, scalable delivery. This study investigated the feasibility of the "Active Brains" digital behavior change intervention and its trial procedures. Materials and methods: Active Brains aims to reduce cognitive decline by promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and online cognitive training. We conducted 12-month parallel-design randomized controlled feasibility trials of "Active Brains" amongst "lower cognitive scoring" (n = 180) and "higher cognitive scoring" (n = 180) adults aged 60-85. Results: We collected 67.2 and 76.1% of our 12-month primary outcome (Baddeley verbal reasoning task) data for the "lower cognitive score" and "higher cognitive score" groups, respectively. Usage of "Active Brains" indicated overall feasibility and satisfactory engagement with the physical activity intervention content (which did not require sustained online engagement), but engagement with online cognitive training was limited. Uptake of the additional brief telephone support appeared to be higher in the "lower cognitive score" trial. Preliminary descriptive trends in the primary outcome data might indicate a protective effect of Active Brains against cognitive decline, but further investigation in fully-powered trials is required to answer this definitively. Discussion: Whilst initial uptake and engagement with the online intervention was modest, it was in line with typical usage of other digital behavior change interventions, and early indications from the descriptive analysis of the primary outcome and behavioral data suggest that further exploration of the potential protective benefits of Active Brains are warranted. The study also identified minor modifications to procedures, particularly to improve online primary-outcome completion. Further investigation of Active Brains will now seek to determine its efficacy in protecting cognitive performance amongst adults aged 60-85 with varied levels of existing cognitive performance.

Is My Cough a Cold or Covid? A Qualitative Study of COVID-19 Symptom Recognition and Attitudes Toward Testing in the UK.

Objective: Key to reducing the spread of COVID-19 in the UK is increased use of the NHS Test and Trace (NHSTT) system. This study explored one of the main issues that determine whether people engage with NHSTT, how people understand symptoms that may indicate the presence of COVID-19 and that should trigger a request for a test. Methods: In this qualitative study, a series of semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 people (21 members of the general population, 19 students). There was nearly an equal split between male and female participants in both samples. Data were collected between 30 November and 11 December 2020 and explored using thematic analysis. There was substantial similarity in responses for both populations so we combined our results and highlighted where differences were present. Results: Participants generally had good knowledge of the main symptoms of COVID-19 (high temperature, new, persistent cough, anosmia) but had low confidence in their ability to differentiate them from symptoms of other illnesses. Attribution of symptoms to COVID-19 was most likely where the symptoms were severe, many symptoms were present, symptoms had lasted for some time and when perceived risk of exposure to infection was high due to previous contact with others. Participants felt encouraged to engage in testing where symptoms were present and had persisted for several days, though, many had concerns about the safety of testing centres and the accuracy of test results. Students had mixed feelings about mass asymptomatic testing, seeing it as a way to access a more normal student experience, but also a potential waste of resources. Conclusions: This study offers novel insights into how people attribute symptoms to COVID-19 and barriers and facilitators to engaging with NHSTT. Participants had positive views of testing, but there is a need to improve not just recognition of each main symptom, but also understanding that even single, mild symptoms may necessitate a test rather than a "wait and see" approach, and to address concerns around test accuracy to increase testing uptake.

Planning and optimising a digital intervention to protect older adults' cognitive health.

BACKGROUND: By 2050, worldwide dementia prevalence is expected to triple. Affordable, scalable interventions are required to support protective behaviours such as physical activity, cognitive training and healthy eating. This paper outlines the theory-, evidence- and person-based development of 'Active Brains': a multi-domain digital behaviour change intervention to reduce cognitive decline amongst older adults. METHODS: During the initial planning phase, scoping reviews, consultation with PPI contributors and expert co-investigators and behavioural analysis collated and recorded evidence that was triangulated to inform provisional 'guiding principles' and an intervention logic model. The following optimisation phase involved qualitative think aloud and semi-structured interviews with 52 older adults with higher and lower cognitive performance scores. Data were analysed thematically and informed changes and additions to guiding principles, the behavioural analysis and the logic model which, in turn, informed changes to intervention content. RESULTS: Scoping reviews and qualitative interviews suggested that the same intervention content may be suitable for individuals with higher and lower cognitive performance. Qualitative findings revealed that maintaining independence and enjoyment motivated engagement in intervention-targeted behaviours, whereas managing ill health was a potential barrier. Social support for engaging in such activities could provide motivation, but was not desirable for all. These findings informed development of intervention content and functionality that appeared highly acceptable amongst a sample of target users. CONCLUSIONS: A digitally delivered intervention with minimal support appears acceptable and potentially engaging to older adults with higher and lower levels of cognitive performance. As well as informing our own intervention development, insights obtained through this process may be useful for others working with, and developing interventions for, older adults and/or those with cognitive impairment.

Patient engagement with antibiotic messaging in secondary care: a qualitative feasibility study of the 'review and revise' experience.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate and optimise the acceptability and usefulness of a patient leaflet about antibiotic prescribing decisions made during hospitalisation, and to explore individual patient experiences and preferences regarding the process of antibiotic prescription 'review and revise' which is a key strategy to minimise antibiotic overuse in hospitals. METHODS: In this qualitative study, run within the feasibility study of a large, cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial of 36 hospital organisations, a series of semi-structured, think-aloud telephone interviews were conducted and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Fifteen adult patients who had experienced a recent acute medical hospital admission during which they had been prescribed antimicrobials and offered a patient leaflet about antibiotic prescribing were recruited to the study. RESULTS: Participants reacted positively to the leaflet, reporting that it was both an accessible and important source of information which struck the appropriate balance between informing and reassuring. Participants all valued open communication with clinicians, and were keen to be involved in antibiotic prescribing decisions, with individuals reporting positive experiences regarding antibiotic prescription changes or stopping. Many participants had prior experience or knowledge of antibiotics and resistance, and generally welcomed efforts to reduce antibiotic usage. Overall, there was a feeling that healthcare professionals (HCPs) are trusted experts providing the most appropriate treatment for individual patient conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers novel insights into how patients within secondary care are likely to respond to messages advocating a reduction in the use of antibiotics through the 'review and revise' approach. Due to the level of trust that patients place in their care provider, encouraging HCPs within secondary care to engage patients with greater communication and information provision could provide great advantages in the drive to reduce antibiotic use. It may also be beneficial for HCPs to view patient experiences as cumulative events that have the potential to impact future behaviour around antibiotic use. Finally, pre-testing messages about antibiotic prescribing and resistance is vital to dispelling any misconceptions either around effectiveness of treatment for patients, or perceptions of how messages may be received. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12674243 (10 April 2017).

The Active Brains Digital Intervention to Reduce Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: Protocol for a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing physical activity, improving diet, and performing brain training exercises are associated with reduced cognitive decline in older adults. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we describe a feasibility trial of the Active Brains intervention, a web-based digital intervention developed to support older adults to make these 3 healthy behavior changes associated with improved cognitive health. The Active Brains trial is a randomized feasibility trial that will test how accessible, acceptable, and feasible the Active Brains intervention is and the effectiveness of the study procedures that we intend to use in the larger, main trial. METHODS: In the randomized controlled trial (RCT), we use a parallel design. We will be conducting the intervention with 2 populations recruited through GP practices (family practices) in England from 2018 to 2019: older adults with signs of cognitive decline and older adults without any cognitive decline. Trial participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 study groups: usual care, the Active Brains intervention, or the Active Brains website plus brief support from a trained coach (over the phone or by email). The main outcomes are performance on cognitive tasks, quality of life (using EuroQol-5D 5 level), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, and diagnoses of dementia. Secondary outcomes (including depression, enablement, and health care costs) and process measures (including qualitative interviews with participants and supporters) will also be collected. The trial has been approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (reference 17/SC/0463). RESULTS: Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences, and shared at public engagement events. Data collection was completed in May 2020, and the results will be reported in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study will help us to identify and make important changes to the website, the support received, or the study procedures before we progress to our main randomized phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 23758980; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN23758980. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/18929.

Antibiotic Review Kit for Hospitals (ARK-Hospital): study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To ensure patients continue to get early access to antibiotics at admission, while also safely reducing antibiotic use in hospitals, one needs to target the continued need for antibiotics as more diagnostic information becomes available. UK Department of Health guidance promotes an initiative called 'Start Smart then Focus': early effective antibiotics followed by active 'review and revision' 24-72 h later. However in 2017, < 10% of antibiotic prescriptions were discontinued at review, despite studies suggesting that 20-30% of prescriptions could be stopped safely. METHODS/DESIGN: Antibiotic Review Kit for Hospitals (ARK-Hospital) is a complex 'review and revise' behavioural intervention targeting healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic prescribing or administration in inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine (the largest consumers of non-prophylactic antibiotics in hospitals). The primary study objective is to evaluate whether ARK-Hospital can safely reduce the total antibiotic burden in acute/general medical inpatients by at least 15%. The primary hypotheses are therefore that the introduction of the behavioural intervention will be non-inferior in terms of 30-day mortality post-admission (relative margin 5%) for an acute/general medical inpatient, and superior in terms of defined daily doses of antibiotics per acute/general medical admission (co-primary outcomes). The unit of observation is a hospital organisation, a single hospital or group of hospitals organised with one executive board and governance framework (National Health Service trusts in England; health boards in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland). The study comprises a feasibility study in one organisation (phase I), an internal pilot trial in three organisations (phase II) and a cluster (organisation)-randomised stepped-wedge trial (phase III) targeting a minimum of 36 organisations in total. Randomisation will occur over 18 months from November 2017 with a further 12 months follow-up to assess sustainability. The behavioural intervention will be delivered to healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic prescribing or administration in adult inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine. Outcomes will be assessed in adult inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine, collected through routine electronic health records in all patients. DISCUSSION: ARK-Hospital aims to provide a feasible, sustainable and generalisable mechanism for increasing antibiotic stopping in patients who no longer need to receive them at 'review and revise'. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN12674243 . Registered on 10 April 2017.

Communicating to increase public uptake of pandemic flu vaccination in the UK: Which messages work?

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is considered the most effective preventive measure against influenza transmission, yet vaccination rates during the 2009/10 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic were low across the world, with the majority of people declining to receive the vaccine. Despite extensive research on the predictors of uptake of influenza vaccination, little research has focused on testing the effectiveness of evidence and theory-based messages. AIMS: To examine the persuasiveness of messages promoting vaccination and antiviral use either as health-enhancing or as risk-reducing, as well as messages which conveyed evidence-based information about the costs and benefits of vaccination, or which applied anticipated regret as a motivator for vaccine uptake. METHOD: We conducted 11 focus groups with forty-one members of the general population in England including young and older adults, those with lower education, parents, and those with elevated health risk. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The factual, evidence-based messages were well received with participants finding them the most convincing and useful, particularly where they gave cost-benefit comparisons. Health-enhancing messages were received with scepticism and concern that the messages were not honest about the potential lack of safety of vaccination. In contrast, risk-reduction messages were perceived as being more balanced and credible. Messages aiming to elicit feelings of anticipated regret for not getting vaccinated were generally perceived as patronising and unprofessional. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination messages should be kept brief, but convey balanced, evidence-based information, and be transparent in their communication of potential side-effects. The general public seem to prefer messages that are factual and emphasise the costs and benefits of vaccination, particularly with regards to vaccine safety.