Alex F Martin1,2, Sarah Denford3,4,5, G James Rubin6, Lucy Yardley3,4,5,7, Nicola Love8, Derren Ready3,8, Isabel Oliver3,8, Richard Amlôt6,3,9. 1. Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London, London, UK. alex.martin@kcl.ac.uk. 2. Department of Psychology, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK. alex.martin@kcl.ac.uk. 3. Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 4. Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 5. School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 6. Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London, London, UK. 7. School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 8. National Infection Service, Public Health England, Bristol, UK. 9. Behavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, UK.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Sarah Denford; Alex F Martin; Lauren Towler; Fiona Mowbray; Rosie Essery; Rachael Bloomer; Derren Ready; Nicola Love; Richard Amlôt; Isabel Oliver; G James Rubin; Lucy Yardley Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Sarah Denford; Alex F Martin; Nicola Love; Derren Ready; Isabel Oliver; Richard Amlôt; Lucy Yardley; G James Rubin Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-08-03
Authors: Bernadette C Young; David W Eyre; Saroj Kendrick; Chris White; Sylvester Smith; George Beveridge; Toby Nonnenmacher; Fegor Ichofu; Joseph Hillier; Sarah Oakley; Ian Diamond; Emma Rourke; Fiona Dawe; Ieuan Day; Lisa Davies; Paul Staite; Andrea Lacey; James McCrae; Ffion Jones; Joseph Kelly; Urszula Bankiewicz; Sarah Tunkel; Richard Ovens; David Chapman; Vineta Bhalla; Peter Marks; Nick Hicks; Tom Fowler; Susan Hopkins; Lucy Yardley; Tim E A Peto Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Sarah Denford; Lauren Towler; Behiye Ali; Georgia Treneman-Evans; Rachael Bloomer; Tim Ea Peto; Bernadette C Young; Lucy Yardley Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Lucy Marsden; David M Hughes; Rhiannon Corcoran; Christopher P Cheyne; Matt Ashton; Iain Buchan; Emer Coffey; Marta García-Fiñana Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: John Drury; Guanlan Mao; Ann John; Atiya Kamal; G James Rubin; Clifford Stott; Tushna Vandrevala; Theresa M Marteau Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 3.295