Interventions to promote physical distancing behaviour during infectious disease pandemics or epidemics: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Physical distancing, defined as keeping 1-2m apart when co-located, can prevent cases of droplet or aerosol transmitted infectious diseases such as SARS-CoV2. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distancing was a recommendation or a requirement in many countries. This systematic review aimed to determine which interventions and behavior change techniques (BCTs) are effective in promoting adherence to distancing and through which potential mechanisms of action (MOAs). METHODS: Six databases were searched. The review included studies that were (a) conducted on humans, (b) reported physical distancing interventions, (c) included any comparator (e.g., pre-intervention versus post-intervention; randomized controlled trial), and (d) reported actual distancing or predictors of distancing behavior. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. BCTs and potential MoAs were identified in each intervention. RESULTS: Six articles (with seven studies and 19 comparisons) indicated that distancing interventions could successfully change MoAs and behavior. Successful BCTs (MoAs) included feedback on behavior (e.g., motivation); information about health consequences, salience of health consequences (e.g., beliefs about consequences), demonstration (e.g., beliefs about capabilities), and restructuring the physical environment (e.g., environmental context and resources). The most promising interventions were proximity buzzers, directional systems, and posters with loss-framed messages that demonstrated the behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates several BCTs and potential MoAs that should be targeted in interventions and highlights gaps that should be the focus of future research.

Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice.

Technological advances have seen the offer of genome sequencing becoming part of mainstream medical practice. Research has elicited patient and health professional views on the ethical issues genome sequencing raises, however, we know little about the general public's views. These views offer an insight into people's faith in such technologies, informing discussion regarding the approach to consent in clinic. We aimed to garner public views regarding genome sequencing, incidental findings (IFs), and sharing genetic information with relatives. Participants (n = 1954) from the British general public completed a survey, distributed via email. Overall, the public had a positive view of genomic sequencing, choosing 'informative' as the most popular word (52%) and 'family legacy' as the most popular analogy (33%) representing genomic sequencing for them. Fifty-three percent  agree that their relative had the right to be told about genetic information relevant to them. Fifty-four percent would expect to be told about IFs whether they had asked for them or not. Clinical practice needs to acknowledge these perspectives and expectations in order to facilitate meaningful discussion during the consent process for genomic tests. We suggest that: (a) optimistic perspectives on the usefulness of genomic tests need to be tempered by discussion in clinic about the likelihood that genomic results might be uninformative, uncertain or unexpected; (b) discussions regarding the familial nature of results are needed before testing: the majority of patients will welcome this and any concerns can be explored further; and (c) a wider discussion is required regarding the consent approach for genomic testing.

Exploring broad consent in the context of the 100,000 Genomes Project: a mixed methods study.

The 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP)-a hybrid clinical-research initiative-was set up to analyse whole-genome sequences (WGS) from patients living with a rare disease or cancer. The project positioned participant consent as being of central importance, but consent in the context of genomic testing raises challenging issues. In this mixed method study, we surveyed 1337 100kGP participants regarding their experiences of taking part in the project and conducted in-depth interviews with 24 survey respondents to explore these findings further. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and interview data were analysed thematically. The consent approach of the 100kGP resulted in a proportion of our study's participants not understanding the complexities of the project and what types of results they might receive; for example, 20% of participants who we surveyed from the cancer arm did not recall what decisions they had made regarding additional findings. It is not surprising that a project such as this, with such diverse aims and participant groups, would throw up at least some challenges. However, participants reported being satisfied with their experience of the project to date. Our study highlights that in the context of consent for more complex endeavours, such as the 100kGP, it is important to assess (and document) an agreement to take part, but complicated decisions about what and when to communicate may need revisiting over time in response to changing contexts. We discuss the implications of our findings with reference to participants of the 100kGP and the newly formed NHS Genomic Medicine Service.