Paul Little1, Beth Stuart2, F D R Hobbs3, Mike Moore2, Jane Barnett2, Deborah Popoola4, Karen Middleton2, Joanne Kelly2, Mark Mullee5, James Raftery2, Guiqing Yao2, William Carman6, Douglas Fleming7, Helen Stokes-Lampard4, Ian Williamson2, Judith Joseph8, Sascha Miller8, Lucy Yardley8. 1. Primary Care and Population Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. Electronic address: p.little@soton.ac.uk. 2. Primary Care and Population Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 3. Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 4. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 5. Primary Care and Population Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; NIHR Research Design Service South Central, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 6. West of Scotland Specialist Virology Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 7. Research and Surveillance Centre RCGP, Birmingham, UK. 8. Centre for Applications of Health Psychology University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Handwashing to prevent transmission of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) has been widely advocated, especially during the H1N1 pandemic. However, the role of handwashing is debated, and no good randomised evidence exists among adults in non-deprived settings. We aimed to assess whether an internet-delivered intervention to modify handwashing would reduce the number of RTIs among adults and their household members. METHODS: We recruited individuals sharing a household by mailed invitation through general practices in England. After consent, participants were randomised online by an automated computer-generated random number programme to receive either no access or access to a bespoke automated web-based intervention that maximised handwashing intention, monitored handwashing behaviour, provided tailored feedback, reinforced helpful attitudes and norms, and addressed negative beliefs. We enrolled participants into an additional cohort (randomised to receive intervention or no intervention) to assess whether the baseline questionnaire on handwashing would affect handwashing behaviour. Participants were not masked to intervention allocation, but statistical analysis commands were constructed masked to group. The primary outcome was number of episodes of RTIs in index participants in a modified intention-to-treat population of randomly assigned participants who completed follow-up at 16 weeks. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN75058295. FINDINGS: Across three winters between Jan 17, 2011, and March 31, 2013, we enrolled 20,066 participants and randomly assigned them to receive intervention (n=10,040) or no intervention (n=10,026). 16,908 (84%) participants were followed up with the 16 week questionnaire (8241 index participants in intervention group and 8667 in control group). After 16 weeks, 4242 individuals (51%) in the intervention group reported one or more episodes of RTI compared with 5135 (59%) in the control group (multivariate risk ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·83-0·89; p<0·0001). The intervention reduced transmission of RTIs (reported within 1 week of another household member) both to and from the index person. We noted a slight increase in minor self-reported skin irritation (231 [4%] of 5429 in intervention group vs 79 [1%] of 6087 in control group) and no reported serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In non-pandemic years, an effective internet intervention designed to increase handwashing could have an important effect in reduction of infection transmission. In view of the heightened concern during a pandemic and the likely role of the internet in access to advice, the intervention also has potential for effective implementation during a pandemic. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.
BACKGROUND: Handwashing to prevent transmission of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) has been widely advocated, especially during the H1N1 pandemic. However, the role of handwashing is debated, and no good randomised evidence exists among adults in non-deprived settings. We aimed to assess whether an internet-delivered intervention to modify handwashing would reduce the number of RTIs among adults and their household members. METHODS: We recruited individuals sharing a household by mailed invitation through general practices in England. After consent, participants were randomised online by an automated computer-generated random number programme to receive either no access or access to a bespoke automated web-based intervention that maximised handwashing intention, monitored handwashing behaviour, provided tailored feedback, reinforced helpful attitudes and norms, and addressed negative beliefs. We enrolled participants into an additional cohort (randomised to receive intervention or no intervention) to assess whether the baseline questionnaire on handwashing would affect handwashing behaviour. Participants were not masked to intervention allocation, but statistical analysis commands were constructed masked to group. The primary outcome was number of episodes of RTIs in index participants in a modified intention-to-treat population of randomly assigned participants who completed follow-up at 16 weeks. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN75058295. FINDINGS: Across three winters between Jan 17, 2011, and March 31, 2013, we enrolled 20,066 participants and randomly assigned them to receive intervention (n=10,040) or no intervention (n=10,026). 16,908 (84%) participants were followed up with the 16 week questionnaire (8241 index participants in intervention group and 8667 in control group). After 16 weeks, 4242 individuals (51%) in the intervention group reported one or more episodes of RTI compared with 5135 (59%) in the control group (multivariate risk ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·83-0·89; p<0·0001). The intervention reduced transmission of RTIs (reported within 1 week of another household member) both to and from the index person. We noted a slight increase in minor self-reported skin irritation (231 [4%] of 5429 in intervention group vs 79 [1%] of 6087 in control group) and no reported serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In non-pandemic years, an effective internet intervention designed to increase handwashing could have an important effect in reduction of infection transmission. In view of the heightened concern during a pandemic and the likely role of the internet in access to advice, the intervention also has potential for effective implementation during a pandemic. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.
Authors: Gregory A Doyle; Jun Xiang; Hina Zaman; Holli Neiman-Hart; Michael Maroon; Elham Arghami; Hina Durani; Hari Salana; Venugopal Komakula; Dana E King Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Lin H Chen; Pauline V Han; Mary E Wilson; Rhett J Stoney; Emily S Jentes; Christine Benoit; Winnie W Ooi; Elizabeth D Barnett; Davidson H Hamer Journal: Travel Med Infect Dis Date: 2016-10-02 Impact factor: 6.211
Authors: Kate Greenwell; Ben Ainsworth; Anne Bruton; Elizabeth Murray; Daniel Russell; Mike Thomas; Lucy Yardley Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 2.871
Authors: Sally F Bloomfield; Graham Aw Rook; Elizabeth A Scott; Fergus Shanahan; Rosalind Stanwell-Smith; Paul Turner Journal: Perspect Public Health Date: 2016-07
Authors: Vincent A van Vugt; Johannes C van der Wouden; Judith E Bosmans; Martin Smalbrugge; Willianne van Diest; Rosie Essery; Lucy Yardley; Henriëtte E van der Horst; Otto R Maarsingh Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tom Jefferson; Chris B Del Mar; Liz Dooley; Eliana Ferroni; Lubna A Al-Ansary; Ghada A Bawazeer; Mieke L van Driel; Mark A Jones; Sarah Thorning; Elaine M Beller; Justin Clark; Tammy C Hoffmann; Paul P Glasziou; John M Conly Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-11-20
Authors: Natalie Gold; Xiao-Yang Hu; Sarah Denford; Ru-Yu Xia; Lauren Towler; Julia Groot; Rachel Gledhill; Merlin Willcox; Ben Ainsworth; Sascha Miller; Michael Moore; Paul Little; Richard Amlôt; Tim Chadborn; Lucy Yardley Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 3.295