The effect of nocebo explanation and empathy on side-effect expectations of medication use following a fictional GP consultation.

The simple act of informing patients about side-effects increases the likelihood they will experience them (i.e. the nocebo effect). Explaining this psychological phenomenon could help to reduce side-effect experience, however, it is yet to be explored if this can be applied to clinical settings where new medication is prescribed. In addition, the degree to which a health-care provider empathetically communicates this to patients may have an impact. To investigate this, we carried out 2 × 2 factorial trial to assess the effect of nocebo explanation and empathy (plus their interaction) on side-effect expectations following a fictional GP consultation prescribing a new medication. Overall, 208 participants were randomised to watch one of the four fictive GP consultations and play the role of the patient. In all videos, participants received information about the reason for the consultation, the recommendation of a new fictive medicine, how to take it, benefits and side-effects. The videos differed in whether the GP provided an explanation of the nocebo effect (yes/no) and whether they communicated in an empathetic style (yes/no). After watching the video, participants were asked about their side-effect expectations and rated the quality of the GP's communication. Two-way ANOVAs revealed no main effect of nocebo explanation on expectation of side-effects warned or not warned about in the consultation. However, there was a main effect of empathy, with participants watching the empathetic consultations having significantly lower expectations of non-warned-about side-effects. There was no significant interaction. Findings suggest that explaining the nocebo effect and GP empathy did little to allay expectations of side-effects that were specifically mentioned in the consultation. However, GP empathy had an effect by helping to reduce additional side-effect expectations participants still had. Future work should extend these findings to real GP consultations where the full dimensions of empathy can be explored.

Observed and self-reported COVID-19 health protection behaviours on a university campus and the impact of a single simple intervention.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most data on adherence to health protective behaviours were collected via a self-report. We quantified the discrepancy between self-report data and discretely observed behaviour in a sample of university staff and students. We assessed the prevalence of cleaning hands, wearing a face-covering and maintaining distance from others. We also tested whether additional signage reminding people that these behaviours were mandatory improved observed adherence. Prevalence estimates based on self-report were higher than those based on observations. Signage was associated with improvements for observed behaviours (all χ2 ≥ 6.0, P < 0.05). We caution that self-reported data can produce misleading adherence rates.

Mpox knowledge, behaviours and barriers to public health measures among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the UK: a qualitative study to inform public health guidance and messaging.

BACKGROUND: The 2022-23 mpox epidemic is the first-time sustained community transmission had been reported in countries without epidemiological links to endemic areas. During that period, the outbreak almost exclusively affected sexual networks of gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) and people living with HIV. In efforts to control transmission, multiple public health measures were implemented, including vaccination, contact tracing and isolation. This study examines knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of mpox among a sample of GBMSM during the 2022-23 outbreak in the UK, including facilitators for and barriers to the uptake of public health measures. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 44 GBMSM between May and December 2022. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Positive and negative comments pertaining to public health measures were collated in a modified version of a 'table of changes' to inform optimisations to public health messages and guidance. RESULTS: Most interviewees were well informed about mpox transmission mechanisms and were either willing to or currently adhering to public health measures, despite low perceptions of mpox severity. Measures that aligned with existing sexual health practices and norms were considered most acceptable. Connections to GBMSM networks and social media channels were found to increase exposure to sexual health information and norms influencing protective behaviours. Those excluded or marginalized from these networks found some measures challenging to perform or adhere to. Although social media was a key mode of information sharing, there were preferences for timely information from official sources to dispel exaggerated or misleading information. CONCLUSIONS: There are differential needs, preferences, and experiences of GBMSM that limit the acceptability of some mitigation and prevention measures. Future public health interventions and campaigns should be co-designed in consultation with key groups and communities to ensure greater acceptability and credibility in different contexts and communities.

Understanding adherence to self-isolation in the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in England: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: During the early "containment" phase of the COVID-19 response in England (January-March 2020), contact tracing was managed by Public Health England (PHE). Adherence to self-isolation during this phase and how people were making those decisions has not previously been determined. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of decisions around adherence to self-isolation during the first phase of the COVID-19 response in England. METHODS: A mixed-methods cross sectional study was conducted, including an online survey and qualitative interviews. The overall pattern of adherence was described as never leaving home, leaving home for lower-contact reasons and leaving home for higher-contact reasons. Fisher's exact test was used to test associations between adherence and potentially predictive binary factors. Factors showing evidence of association overall were then considered in relation to the three aspects of adherence individually. Qualitative data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 250 respondents who were advised to self-isolate, 63% reported not leaving home at all during their isolation period, 20% reported leaving only for lower-contact activities (dog walking or exercise) and 16% reported leaving for higher-contact, and therefore higher-risk, reasons. Factors associated with adherence to never going out included: the belief that following isolation advice would save lives, experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, being advised to stay in their room, having help from outside and having regular contact by text message from PHE. Factors associated with non-adherence included being angry about the advice to isolate, being unable to get groceries delivered and concerns about losing touch with friends and family. Interviews highlighted that a sense of duty motivated people to adhere to isolation guidance and where people did leave their homes, these decisions were based on rational calculations of the risk of transmission - people would only leave their homes when they thought they were unlikely to come into contact with others. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding adherence to isolation and associated reasoning during the early stages of the pandemic is essential to pandemic preparedness for future emerging infectious disease outbreaks. Individuals make complex decisions around adherence by calibrating transmission risks, therefore treating adherence as binary should be avoided.

Changes in social contacts in England during the COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and March 2021 as measured by the CoMix survey: A repeated cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the United Kingdom government imposed public health policies in England to reduce social contacts in hopes of curbing virus transmission. We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study to measure contact patterns weekly from March 2020 to March 2021 to estimate the impact of these policies, covering 3 national lockdowns interspersed by periods of less restrictive policies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The repeated cross-sectional survey data were collected using online surveys of representative samples of the UK population by age and gender. Survey participants were recruited by the online market research company Ipsos MORI through internet-based banner and social media ads and email campaigns. The participant data used for this analysis are restricted to those who reported living in England. We calculated the mean daily contacts reported using a (clustered) bootstrap and fitted a censored negative binomial model to estimate age-stratified contact matrices and estimate proportional changes to the basic reproduction number under controlled conditions using the change in contacts as a scaling factor. To put the findings in perspective, we discuss contact rates recorded throughout the year in terms of previously recorded rates from the POLYMOD study social contact study. The survey recorded 101,350 observations from 19,914 participants who reported 466,710 contacts over 53 weeks. We observed changes in social contact patterns in England over time and by participants' age, personal risk factors, and perception of risk. The mean reported contacts for adults 18 to 59 years old ranged between 2.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20 to 2.60) contacts and 4.93 (95% CI 4.65 to 5.19) contacts during the study period. The mean contacts for school-age children (5 to 17 years old) ranged from 3.07 (95% CI 2.89 to 3.27) to 15.11 (95% CI 13.87 to 16.41). This demonstrates a sustained decrease in social contacts compared to a mean of 11.08 (95% CI 10.54 to 11.57) contacts per participant in all age groups combined as measured by the POLYMOD social contact study in 2005 to 2006. Contacts measured during periods of lockdowns were lower than in periods of eased social restrictions. The use of face coverings outside the home has remained high since the government mandated use in some settings in July 2020. The main limitations of this analysis are the potential for selection bias, as participants are recruited through internet-based campaigns, and recall bias, in which participants may under- or overreport the number of contacts they have made. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that recorded contacts reduced dramatically compared to prepandemic levels (as measured in the POLYMOD study), with changes in reported contacts correlated with government interventions throughout the pandemic. Despite easing of restrictions in the summer of 2020, the mean number of reported contacts only returned to about half of that observed prepandemic at its highest recorded level. The CoMix survey provides a unique repeated cross-sectional data set for a full year in England, from the first day of the first lockdown, for use in statistical analyses and mathematical modelling of COVID-19 and other diseases.

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.

Engagement with protective behaviours in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a series of cross-sectional surveys (the COVID-19 rapid survey of adherence to interventions and responses [CORSAIR] study).

BACKGROUND: Behaviour is key to suppressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Maintaining behaviour change can be difficult. We investigated engagement with hand cleaning, reducing the number of outings, and wearing a face covering over the course of the pandemic. METHODS: We used a series of 64 cross-sectional surveys between 10 February 2020 and 20 January 2022 (n ≈ 2000 per wave). Surveys investigated uptake of hand cleaning behaviours, out of home activity (England only, n ≈ 1700 per wave) and wearing a face covering (England only, restricted to those who reported going out shopping in the last week, n ≈ 1400 per wave). RESULTS: Reported hand cleaning has been high throughout the pandemic period (85 to 90% of participants consistently reporting washing their hands thoroughly and regularly with soap and water frequently or very frequently). Out of home activity has mirrored the easing and re-introduction of restrictive measures. Total number of outings were higher in the second national lockdown than in the first and third lockdowns. Wearing a face covering increased steadily between April to August 2020, plateauing until the end of measurement in May 2021, with approximately 80% of those who had been out shopping in the previous week reporting wearing a face covering frequently or very frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement with protective behaviours increased at the start of the pandemic and has remained high since. The greatest variations in behaviour reflected changes to Government rules. Despite the duration of restrictions, people have continued to adopt personal protective behaviours that were intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Exploring the impact of shielding advice on the wellbeing of individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The national shielding programme was introduced by UK Government at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) offered advice and support to stay at home and avoid all non-essential contact. This study aimed to explore the impact and responses of "shielding" on the health and wellbeing of CEV individuals in Southwest England during the first COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: A two-stage mixed methods study, including a structured survey (7 August-23 October 2020) and semi-structured telephone interviews (26 August-30 September 2020) with a sample of individuals who had been identified as CEV and advised to "shield" by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 203 people (57% female, 54% > 69 years, 94% White British, 64% retired) in Southwest England identified as CEV by BNSSG CCG. Thirteen survey respondents participated in follow-up interviews (53% female, 40% > 69 years, 100% White British, 61% retired). Receipt of 'official' communication from NHS England or General Practitioner (GP) was considered by participants as the legitimate start of shielding. 80% of survey responders felt they received all relevant advice needed to shield, yet interviewees criticised the timing of advice and often sought supplementary information. Shielding behaviours were nuanced, adapted to suit personal circumstances, and waned over time. Few interviewees received community support, although food boxes and informal social support were obtained by some. Worrying about COVID-19 was common for survey responders (90%). Since shielding had begun, physical and mental health reportedly worsened for 35% and 42% of survey responders respectively. 21% of survey responders scored ≥ 10 on the PHQ-9 questionnaire indicating possible depression and 15% scored ≥ 10 on the GAD-7 questionnaire indicating possible anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights the difficulties in providing generic messaging that is applicable and appropriate given the diversity of individuals identified as CEV and the importance of sharing tailored and timely advice to inform shielding decisions. Providing messages that reinforce self-determined action and assistance from support services could reduce the negative impact of shielding on mental health and feelings of social isolation.

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.

Adherence to protective measures among healthcare workers in the UK: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are frontline responders to emergency infectious disease outbreaks such as COVID-19. To avoid the rapid spread of disease, adherence to protective measures is paramount. We investigated rates of correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), hand hygiene and physical distancing in UK HCWs who had been to their workplace at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and factors associated with adherence. METHODS: We used an online cross-sectional survey of 1035 UK healthcare professionals (data collected 12-16 June 2020). We excluded those who had not been to their workplace in the previous 6 weeks, leaving us with a sample size of 831. Respondents were asked about their use of PPE, hand hygiene and physical distancing in the workplace. Frequency of uptake was reported descriptively; adjusted logistic regressions were used to separately investigate factors associated with adherence to use of PPE, maintaining good hand hygiene and physical distancing from colleagues. RESULTS: Adherence to personal protective measures was suboptimal (PPE use: 80.0%, 95% CI 77.3 to 82.8; hand hygiene: 67.8%, 95% CI 64.6 to 71.0; coming into close contact with colleagues: 74.7%, 95% CI 71.7 to 77.7). Adherence to PPE use was associated with having received training about health and safety in the workplace for COVID-19, greater perceived social pressure to adopt the behaviour and availability of PPE. Non-adherence was associated with fatalism about COVID-19 and greater perceived difficulty of adopting protective measures. Workplace design using markings to facilitate distancing was associated with adherence to physical distancing. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of personal protective behaviours among UK HCWs at the start of the pandemic was variable. Factors associated with adherence provide insight into ways to support HCWs to adopt personal protective behaviours, such as ensuring that adequate PPE is available and designing workplaces to facilitate physical distancing.

Predicting Expectations of Side-Effects for Those Which Are Warned Versus Not Warned About in Patient Information Leaflets.

BACKGROUND: Research investigating predictors of side-effect expectations is disparate and largely based on hypothetical vignettes. PURPOSE: To carry out a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial and investigate the predictors of side-effect expectations for side-effects that were, or were not, warned about. METHODS: Two hundred and three healthy adults completed measures concerning demographics, psychological factors, baseline symptoms, and medication-related beliefs before reading one of two types of patient information leaflet (PIL) (standard or positively framed PIL) for a sham medication and asking them about their side-effect expectations. Associations between these measures and side-effect expectations whilst controlling for the PIL received were assessed using regression analyses. RESULTS: 82.8% of participants expected side-effects that were warned about in the PIL, and 29.1% expected side-effects that were not warned about. Participants who were younger, from White backgrounds, less optimistic, experienced increased anxiety and received the standard PIL were more likely to expect side-effects that were warned about. Those with higher beliefs about medicine overuse and lower trust in medicine development were more likely to expect side-effects that were not warned about. Higher somatization, baseline symptoms, modern health worries scores, and lower trust in pharmaceutical companies were associated with increased expectations for all side-effects. The results suggest we can not only rely on altering side-effect risk communication to reduce side-effect expectations and therefore nocebo effects. We must also consider patients' beliefs about trust in medicines. More work is needed to investigate this in a patientsample in which the medication is known to them.

Understanding patterns of adherence to COVID-19 mitigation measures: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence highlights the disproportionate impact of measures that have been introduced to reduce the spread of coronavirus on individuals from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, and among those on a low income. An understanding of barriers to adherence in these populations is needed. In this qualitative study, we examined the patterns of adherence to mitigation measures and reasons underpinning these behaviors. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants from BAME and low-income White backgrounds. The topic guide was designed to explore how individuals are adhering to social distancing and self-isolation during the pandemic and to explore the reasons underpinning this behavior. RESULTS: We identified three categories of adherence to lockdown measures: (i) caution-motivated super-adherence (ii) risk-adapted partial-adherence and (iii) necessity-driven partial-adherence. Decisions about adherence considered potential for exposure to the virus, ability to reduce risk through use of protective measures and perceived importance of/need for the behavior. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights a need for a more nuanced understanding of adherence to lockdown measures. Provision of practical and financial support could reduce the number of people who have to engage in necessity-driven partial-adherence. More evidence is required on population level risks of people adopting risk-adapted partial-adherence.

Engagement with daily testing instead of self-isolating in contacts of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: In December 2020, Public Health England with NHS Test and Trace initiated a pilot study in which close contacts of people with confirmed COVID-19 were given the option to carryout lateral flow device antigen tests at home, as an alternative to self-isolation for 10-14 days. In this study, we evaluated engagement with daily testing, and assessed levels of adherence to the rules relating to behaviour following positive or negative test results. METHODS: We conducted a service evaluation of the pilot study, examining survey responses from a subset of those who responded to an evaluation questionnaire. We used an online cross-sectional survey offered to adult contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases who consented to daily testing. We used a comparison group of contacts who were not offered testing and instead self-isolated. RESULTS: Acceptability of daily testing was lower among survey respondents who were not offered the option of testing and among people from ethnic minority groups. Overall, 52% of respondents reported being more likely to share details of people that they had been in contact with following a positive test result, if they knew that their contacts would be offered the option of daily testing. Only 2% reported that they would be less likely to provide details of their contacts. On the days that they were trying to self-isolate, 19% of participants reported that they left the house, with no significant group differences. Following a negative test, 13% of respondents reported that they increased their contacts, but most (58%) reported having fewer risky contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that daily testing is potentially acceptable, may facilitate sharing contact details of close contacts among those who test positive for COVID-19, and promote adherence to self-isolation. A better understanding is needed of how to make this option more acceptable for all households. The impact of receiving a negative test on behaviour remains a risk that needs to be monitored and mitigated by appropriate messaging. Future research should examine attitudes and behaviour in a context where infection levels are lower, testing is more familiar, and restrictions on activity have been reduced.

Behavioural responses to Covid-19 health certification: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Covid-status certification - certificates for those who test negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, test positive for antibodies, or who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 - has been proposed to enable safer access to a range of activities. Realising these benefits will depend in part upon the behavioural and social impacts of certification. The aim of this rapid review was to describe public attitudes towards certification, and its possible impact on uptake of testing and vaccination, protective behaviours, and crime. METHOD: A search was undertaken in peer-reviewed databases, pre-print databases, and the grey literature, from 2000 to December 2020. Studies were included if they measured attitudes towards or behavioural consequences of health certificates based on one of three indices of Covid-19 status: test-negative result for current infectiousness, test-positive for antibodies conferring natural immunity, or vaccination(s) conferring immunity. RESULTS: Thirty-three papers met the inclusion criteria, only three of which were rated as low risk of bias. Public attitudes were generally favourable towards the use of immunity certificates for international travel, but unfavourable towards their use for access to work and other activities. A significant minority was strongly opposed to the use of certificates of immunity for any purpose. The limited evidence suggested that intention to get vaccinated varied with the activity enabled by certification or vaccination (e.g., international travel). Where vaccination is seen as compulsory this could lead to unwillingness to accept a subsequent vaccination. There was some evidence that restricting access to settings and activities to those with antibody test certificates may lead to deliberate exposure to infection in a minority. Behaviours that reduce transmission may decrease upon health certificates based on any of the three indices of Covid-19 status, including physical distancing and handwashing. CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence suggests that health certification in relation to COVID-19 - outside of the context of international travel - has the potential for harm as well as benefit. Realising the benefits while minimising the harms will require real-time evaluations allowing modifications to maximise the potential contribution of certification to enable safer access to a range of activities.

Effectiveness of small group cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression in Ebola treatment centre staff in Sierra Leone.

Following the 2014 Ebola outbreak, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLAM) were commissioned to provide a 'culturally appropriate, effective and sustainable' intervention to address the psychological needs of the Sierra Leonean Ebola Treatment Centre (ETC) staff. The study evaluated the effectiveness of group Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) developed to treat anxiety, depression and functional impairment amongst a sample of former ETC staff in Sierra Leone. Group comparisons explored whether the effect of the intervention differed dependent on the facilitators that delivered it, as well as whether it differed between former staff of high- and low-risk ETC roles. A sample of 253 former ETC staff attended the group CBT intervention comprised of eight sessions over six weeks. Outcome measures were administered upon entry and within two weeks after the intervention. At post-intervention, anxiety, depression and functional impairment significantly reduced. Reading ability (RA) was introduced as a covariate having impacted the outcomes. The intervention effect differed by facilitators delivering the sessions but not by ETC role risk. The implications of these results are discussed. Group CBT is a promising psychological intervention for treating the anxiety, depression and functional impairment of former ETC staff in Sierra Leone. Furthermore, as part of a stepped-care approach, it may provide a model for psychological support for staff that have worked on the frontline during future epidemics.

Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK.

BACKGROUND: To mitigate and slow the spread of COVID-19, many countries have adopted unprecedented physical distancing policies, including the UK. We evaluate whether these measures might be sufficient to control the epidemic by estimating their impact on the reproduction number (R0, the average number of secondary cases generated per case). METHODS: We asked a representative sample of UK adults about their contact patterns on the previous day. The questionnaire was conducted online via email recruitment and documents the age and location of contacts and a measure of their intimacy (whether physical contact was made or not). In addition, we asked about adherence to different physical distancing measures. The first surveys were sent on Tuesday, 24 March, 1 day after a "lockdown" was implemented across the UK. We compared measured contact patterns during the "lockdown" to patterns of social contact made during a non-epidemic period. By comparing these, we estimated the change in reproduction number as a consequence of the physical distancing measures imposed. We used a meta-analysis of published estimates to inform our estimates of the reproduction number before interventions were put in place. RESULTS: We found a 74% reduction in the average daily number of contacts observed per participant (from 10.8 to 2.8). This would be sufficient to reduce R0 from 2.6 prior to lockdown to 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.89) after the lockdown, based on all types of contact and 0.37 (95% CI = 0.22-0.53) for physical (skin to skin) contacts only. CONCLUSIONS: The physical distancing measures adopted by the UK public have substantially reduced contact levels and will likely lead to a substantial impact and a decline in cases in the coming weeks. However, this projected decline in incidence will not occur immediately as there are significant delays between infection, the onset of symptomatic disease, and hospitalisation, as well as further delays to these events being reported. Tracking behavioural change can give a more rapid assessment of the impact of physical distancing measures than routine epidemiological surveillance.

A systematic review of factors affecting adherence to malaria chemoprophylaxis amongst travellers from non-endemic countries.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to identify predictors of actual or intended adherence with malaria chemoprophylaxis amongst travellers from non-endemic countries visiting endemic countries. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Global Health databases for studies published up to April 2019. Studies were included if they assessed reasons for adherence among people travelling from a country where malaria was not endemic to a country where it was. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included. Predictors of adherence were categorized as relating to either the nature of the travel or the traveller themselves. The three main predictors associated with nature of travel included: destination (e.g. country visited, urban vs rural areas), length of travel and type of travel (e.g. package vs backpacking holiday). The four main traveller-associated predictors were: age, reason for travel (e.g. business, leisure or visiting friends and relatives), perceived risk of catching malaria and experienced or expected medication effects. CONCLUSIONS: In order to improve adherence, clinicians should focus on travellers who are least likely to exhibit adherent behaviour. This includes travellers visiting destinations known to have lower adherence figures (such as rural areas), backpackers, business travellers, younger travellers and those travelling for longer periods of time. They should also check to ensure travellers' perceptions of the risks of malaria are realistic. Where appropriate, misperceptions (such as believing that curing malaria is easier than taking prophylaxis or that travellers visiting relatives have some level of innate immunity) should be corrected. All travellers should be informed of the potential side-effects of medication and given guidance on why it is nonetheless beneficial to continue to take prophylaxis. Further research is required to test interventions to improve adherence.

The usefulness of pre-employment and pre-deployment psychological screening for disaster relief workers: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Individuals who conduct disaster relief work overseas are exposed to a variety of traumatic events that can cause distress and trigger psychological illnesses. Identification of which disaster relief workers may be at risk of experiencing psychological distress or mental health disorders is frequently carried out through pre-employment or pre-deployment psychological screening. The primary objective of our review was to assess the evidence for pre-employment and pre-deployment psychological screening of relief workers who work in disaster situations. We aimed to identify specific pre-employment and pre-deployment characteristics that predict impaired wellbeing of an individual following engaging in disaster-related work. METHODS: A combined list of search terms was composed relating to disaster-related occupations, screening methods, psychological disorders, and study design. The databases used were PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and GlobalHealth. We included studies that used cross-sectional or longitudinal study designs; were published in the English language in peer-reviewed academic journals; reported on the association between pre-employment and pre-deployment features and post-deployment psychological disorders or distress; considered any occupational groups responding to a specified, discrete crisis; and used at least one validated measure of distress or disorder. We extracted data on the author; year of publication; disaster description; country of study; study design; population sample; disorder(s) outcome and the measures used; and results. RESULTS: Sixty-two, high-quality studies were included in the review. Forty-one potential predictors were identified. Of these, only volunteer status and previous history of mental illness and life stressors emerged as reliable predictors of distress or disorder. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that whilst it is attractive to screen for pre-employment and pre-deployment indicators of resilience, the evidence base for doing so is weak. At best, this sort of screening can only weakly suggest vulnerability and at worst may result in discrimination. Until better evidence about its usefulness becomes available, employers should exercise caution over its use.

A systematic review of factors associated with side-effect expectations from medical interventions.

BACKGROUND: Fear of side-effects can result in non-adherence to medical interventions, such as medication and chemotherapy. Side-effect expectations have been identified as strong predictors of later perception of side-effects. However, research investigating predictors of side-effect expectations is disparate. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with side-effect expectations. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they investigated associations between any predictive factor and expectations of side-effects from any medical intervention. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted information about participant characteristics, medication, rates of side-effects expected and predictors of side-effect expectations. Data were narratively synthesized. MAIN RESULTS: We identified sixty-four citations, reporting on seventy-two studies. Predictors fell into five categories: personal characteristics, clinical characteristics, psychological traits and state, presentation format of information, and information sources used. Using verbal risk descriptors (eg 'common') compared to numerical descriptors (eg percentages), having lower quality of life or well-being, and currently experiencing symptoms were associated with increased side-effect expectations. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing unrealistic side-effect expectations may lead to decreased experience of side-effects and increased adherence to medical interventions. Widespread communications about medical interventions should describe the incidence of side-effects numerically. Evidence suggests that clinicians should take particular care with patients with lower quality of life, who are currently experiencing symptoms and who have previously experienced symptoms from treatment. Further research should investigate different clinical populations and aim to quantify the impact of the media and social media on side-effect expectations.

The English National Cohort Study of Flooding & Health: psychological morbidity at three years of follow up.

BACKGROUND: Flooding is expected to increase due to climate change, population growth and urban development. The longer-term mental health impacts of flooding are not well understood. In 2015, the English National Study of Flooding and Health was established to improve understanding of the impact of flooding on health and inform future public health action. METHODS: We used 3 years of data from the English National Study of Flooding and Health. Participants who had consented to follow up were sent a questionnaire. Participants were classified into either "unaffected", "disrupted" or "flooded" according to their exposure. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios for probable depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in each exposure group. The Wald test was used to assess the difference in probable mental health outcomes for those who did and did not experience "persistent damage" to their home. Conditional logistic regression was conducted to assess change in prevalence over the 3 years and to identify possible determinants of recovery. RESULTS: Eight hundred nineteen individuals were included in the final analysis - 119 were classified as unaffected, 421 disrupted and 279 flooded. Overall, 5.7% had probable depression, 8.1% had probable anxiety and 11.8% had probable PTSD, with higher prevalence in the flooded group compared with the unaffected group. After adjustment for potential confounders, probable mental health outcomes were higher in the flooded group compared to the unaffected group, significantly for probable depression (aOR 8.48, 95% CI 1.04-68.97) and PTSD (aOR 7.74, 95% CI 2.24-26.79). Seventy-seven (9.4%) participants reported experiencing persistent damage to their home, most commonly damp (n = 40) and visible mould (n = 26) in liveable rooms. Of the 569 participants who responded at all 3 years, a significant reduction in prevalence for all probable mental health outcomes was observed in the flooded group. CONCLUSIONS: Flooding can have severe long-lasting consequences on mental health in affected populations. If these problems are not identified and treated early, they may persist for years. Further research is necessary to develop and evaluate interventions to increase resilience in at risk populations and to ensure timely access to support services following flooding.