Publications
528 results found
Riley S, Ainslie KEC, Eales O, et al., 2020, High and increasing prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 swab positivity in England during end September beginning October 2020: REACT-1 round 5 updated report
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>REACT-1 is quantifying prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among random samples of the population in England based on PCR testing of self-administered nose and throat swabs. Here we report results from the fifth round of observations for swabs collected from the 18th September to 5th October 2020. This report updates and should be read alongside our round 5 interim report.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Representative samples of the population aged 5 years and over in England with sample size ranging from 120,000 to 175,000 people at each round. Prevalence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, estimation of reproduction number (R) and time trends between and within rounds using exponential growth or decay models.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>175,000 volunteers tested across England between 18th September and 5th October. Findings show a national prevalence of 0.60% (95% confidence interval 0.55%, 0.71%) and doubling of the virus every 29 (17, 84) days in England corresponding to an estimated national R of 1.16 (1.05, 1.27). These results correspond to 1 in 170 people currently swab-positive for the virus and approximately 45,000 new infections each day. At regional level, the highest prevalence is in the North West, Yorkshire and The Humber and the North East with strongest regional growth in North West, Yorkshire and The Humber and West Midlands.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Rapid growth has led to high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in England, with highest rates in the North of England. Prevalence has increased in all age groups, including those at highest risk. Improved compliance with existing policy and, as necessar
Wilson JD, Wallace HE, Loftus-Keeling M, et al., 2020, Swab-yourself trial with economic monitoring and testing for infections collectively (SYSTEMATIC): Part 2. A diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness, study comparing rectal, pharyngeal and urogenital samples analysed individually, versus as a pooled specimen, for the diagnosis of gonorrhoea and chlamydia., Clin Infect Dis
BACKGROUND: Sexual history does not accurately identify those with extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) so universal extragenital sampling is recommended. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are expensive. If urogenital, plus rectal and pharyngeal, samples are analysed the diagnostic cost is trebled. Pooling samples into one NAAT container would cost the same as urogenital samples alone. We compared clinician triple samples analysed individually with self-taken pooled samples for diagnostic accuracy, and cost, in MSM and females. METHODS: Prospective, convenience, sample in UK sexual health clinic. Randomised order of clinician and self-samples from pharynx, rectum, plus first catch urine (FCU) in MSM and vulvovaginal swabs (VVS) in females, for NG and CT detection. RESULTS: Of 1793 participants (1284 females, 509 MSM), 116 had NG detected (75 urogenital, 83 rectum, 72 pharynx). 276 had CT detected (217 urogenital, 249 rectum, 63 pharynx).There was no difference in sensitivities between clinician triple samples and self-pooled specimens for NG (99.1%, 98.3%) but clinician samples analysed individually identified 3% more chlamydia infections than pooled (99.3%, 96.0%; p=0.027). However, pooled specimens identified more infections than VVS/FCU alone. Pooled specimens missed 2 NG and 11 CT infections, whereas VVS/FCU missed 41 NG and 58 CT infections. Self-taken pooled specimens were the most cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Just FCU/VVS testing missed many infections. Self-taken pooled samples were as sensitive as clinician triple samples for identifying NG, but clinician samples analysed individually identified 3% more CT infections than pooled. The extragenital sampling was achievable at no additional diagnostic cost to the FCU/VVS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02371109.
Riley S, Ainslie KEC, Eales O, et al., 2020, High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 swab positivity in England during September 2020: interim report of round 5 of REACT-1 study, Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
Background REACT-1 is a community survey of PCR confirmed swab-positivity for SARS-CoV-2 among random samples of the population in England. This interim report includes data from the fifth round of data collection currently underway for swabs sampled from the 18th to 26th September 2020.Methods Repeated cross-sectional surveys of random samples of the population aged 5 years and over in England with sample size ranging from 120,000 to 160,000 people in each round of data collection. Collection of self-administered nose and throat swab for PCR and questionnaire data. Prevalence of swab-positivity by round and by demographic variables including age, sex, region, ethnicity. Estimation of reproduction number (R) between and within rounds, and time trends using exponential growth or decay model. Assessment of geographical clustering based on boundary-free spatial model.Results Over the 9 days for which data are available, we find 363 positives from 84,610 samples giving a weighted prevalence to date of 0.55% (0.47%, 0.64%) in round 5. This implies that 411,000 (351,000, 478,000) people in England are virus-positive under the assumption that the swab assay is 75% sensitive. Using data from the most recent two rounds, we estimate a doubling time of 10.6 (9.4, 12.0) days covering the period 20th August to 26th September, corresponding to a reproduction number R of 1.47 (1.40, 1.53). Using data only from round 5 we estimate a reproduction number of 1.06 (0.74, 1.46) with probability of 63% that R is greater than 1. Between rounds 4 and 5 there was a marked increase in unweighted prevalence at all ages. In the most recent data, prevalence was highest in the 18 to 24 yrs age group at 0.96% (0.68%, 1.36%). At 65+ yrs prevalence increased 7-fold between rounds 4 and 5 from 0.04% (0.03%, 0.07%) to 0.29% (0.23%, 0.37%). Prevalence increased in all regions between rounds 4 and 5, giving the highest unweighted prevalence in round 5 in the North West at 0.86% (0.69%, 1.06%). In Lond
Bruton J, Jones K, Jenkins R, et al., 2020, Enabling participation of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) and seldom-heard communities in health research: A case study from the SCAMP adolescent cohort study, Research for All, Vol: 4, Pages: 207-219, ISSN: 2399-8121
Aim: To investigate barriers and facilitators to BME parental consent for children’s involvement in data-sharing aspects of study on mobile phone and wireless device use (SCAMP). To co-produce solutions to increase participation. Methods: Focus groups, telephone interviews, community event, PPI Café; symposium with public, participants and researchers. Results: Barriers were concerns about the research, practical constraints, poor communication. Facilitators were value of research, benefits to others. Solutions to increase participation were community support and clear, simple communication. Overall, trust in the research and the researchers was a key focus of enabling participation.Sharing recommendations: Symposium generated ideas about improving participation including tailoring participant information, engaging with local advocates, involving people in research design and delivery.Key words: Seldom heard, BME, research participation, co-production, PPI, parental consent
Riley S, Ainslie KEC, Eales O, et al., 2020, Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 in England: detection by community antigen surveillance
<jats:title>Summary</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Based on cases and deaths, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England peaked in late March and early April 2020 and then declined until the end of June. Since the start of July, cases have increased, while deaths have continued to decrease.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We report results from 594,000 swabs tested for SARS-CoV-2 virus obtained from a representative sample of people in England over four rounds collected regardless of symptoms, starting in May 2020 and finishing at the beginning of September 2020. Swabs for the most recent two rounds were taken between 24th July and 11th August and for round 4 between 22nd August and 7th September. We estimate weighted overall prevalence, doubling times between and within rounds and associated reproduction numbers. We obtained unweighted prevalence estimates by sub-groups: age, sex, region, ethnicity, key worker status, household size, for which we also estimated odds of infection. We identified clusters of swab-positive participants who were closer, on average, to other swab-positive participants than would be expected.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Findings</jats:title><jats:p>Over all four rounds of the study, we found that 72% (67%, 76%) of swab-positive individuals were asymptomatic at the time of swab and in the week prior. The epidemic declined between rounds 1 and 2, and rounds 2 and 3. However, the epidemic was increasing between rounds 3 and 4, with a doubling time of 17 (13, 23) days corresponding to an R value of 1.3 (1.2, 1.4). When analysing round 3 alone, we found that the epidemic had started to grow again with 93% probability. Using only the most recent round 4 data, we estimated a doubling time of 7.7 (5.5, 12.7) days, corresponding to an R value of 1.7 (1.4, 2.0). Cy
Robb C, Loots C, Ahmadi-Abhari S, et al., 2020, Associations of social isolation with anxiety and depression during the early COVID-19 Pandemic: a survey of older adults in London, UK, Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol: 11, Pages: 1-12, ISSN: 1664-0640
The COVID-19 pandemic is imposing a profound negative impact on the health and wellbeing of societies and individuals, worldwide. One concern is the effect of social isolation as a result of social distancing on the mental health of vulnerable populations, including older people.Within six weeks of lockdown, we initiated the CHARIOT COVID-19 Rapid Response Study, a bespoke survey of cognitively healthy older people living in London,to investigate the impact of COVID-19 and associated social isolation on mental and physical wellbeing. The sample was drawn from CHARIOT, a register of people over 50 who have consented to be contacted for ageing related research. A total of 327,127 men and women (mean age=70.7 [SD=7.4]) participated in the baseline survey, May-July 2020. Participants were asked about changes to the 14 components of the Hospital Anxiety Depression scale (HADS) after lockdown was introduced in the UK,on 23rd March. A total of 12.8% of participants reported feeling worse on the depression components of HADS (7.8% men and 17.3% women) and 3612.3% reported feeling worse on the anxiety components (7.8% men and 16.5% women). Fewer participants reported feeling improved (1.5% for depression and 4.9% for anxiety). Women, younger participants, those single/widowed/divorced, reporting poor sleep, feelings of loneliness and who reported living alone were more likely to indicate feeling worse on both the depression and/or anxiety components of the HADS. There was a significant negative association between subjective loneliness and worsened components of both depression (OR 17.24, 95% CI 13.20, 22.50) and anxiety (OR 10.85, 95% CI 8.39, 14.03). Results may inform targeted interventions and help guide policy recommendations in reducing the effects of social isolation related to the pandemic, and beyond, on the mental health of older people.
Ward H, Atchison C, Whitaker M, et al., 2020, Antibody prevalence for SARS-CoV-2 in England following first peak of the pandemic: REACT2 study in 100,000 adults, Publisher: bioRxiv
Background England, UK has experienced a large outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As in USA and elsewhere, disadvantaged communities have been disproportionately affected. Methods National REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-2 (REACT-2) seroprevalence study using self-administered lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test for IgG among a random population sample of 100,000 adults over 18 years in England, 20 June to 13 July 2020. Results Completed questionnaires were available for 109,076 participants, yielding 5,544 IgG positive results and adjusted (for test performance), re-weighted (for sampling) prevalence of 6.0% (95% CI: 5.8, 6.1). Highest prevalence was in London (13.0% [12.3, 13.6]), among people of Black or Asian (mainly South Asian) ethnicity (17.3% [15.8, 19.1] and 11.9% [11.0, 12.8] respectively) and those aged 18-24 years (7.9% [7.3, 8.5]). Care home workers with client-facing roles had adjusted odds ratio of 3.1 (2.5, 3.8) compared with non-essential workers. One third (32.2%, [31.0-33.4]) of antibody positive individuals reported no symptoms. Among symptomatic cases, the majority (78.8%) reported symptoms during the peak of the epidemic in England in March (31.3%) and April (47.5%) 2020. We estimate that 3.36 million (3.21, 3.51) people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in England to end June 2020, with an overall infection fatality ratio of 0.90% (0.86, 0.94). Conclusion The pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 infection in England disproportionately affected ethnic minority groups and health and care home workers. The higher risk of infection in these groups may explain, at least in part, their increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality from COVID-19.
Atchison C, Pristerà P, Cooper E, et al., 2020, Usability and acceptability of home-based self-testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies for population surveillance, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Vol: 2020, Pages: 1-10, ISSN: 1058-4838
BACKGROUND: This study assesses acceptability and usability of home-based self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA). METHODS: We carried out public involvement and pilot testing in 315 volunteers to improve usability. Feedback was obtained through online discussions, questionnaires, observations and interviews of people who tried the test at home. This informed the design of a nationally representative survey of adults in England using two LFIAs (LFIA1 and LFIA2) which were sent to 10,600 and 3,800 participants, respectively, who provided further feedback. RESULTS: Public involvement and pilot testing showed high levels of acceptability, but limitations with the usability of kits. Most people reported completing the test; however, they identified difficulties with practical aspects of the kit, particularly the lancet and pipette, a need for clearer instructions and more guidance on interpretation of results. In the national study, 99.3% (8,693/8,754) of LFIA1 and 98.4% (2,911/2,957) of LFIA2 respondents attempted the test and 97.5% and 97.8% of respondents completed it, respectively. Most found the instructions easy to understand, but some reported difficulties using the pipette (LFIA1: 17.7%) and applying the blood drop to the cassette (LFIA2: 31.3%). Most respondents obtained a valid result (LFIA1: 91.5%; LFIA2: 94.4%). Overall there was substantial concordance between participant and clinician interpreted results (kappa: LFIA1 0.72; LFIA2 0.89). CONCLUSION: Impactful public involvement is feasible in a rapid response setting. Home self-testing with LFIAs can be used with a high degree of acceptability and usability by adults, making them a good option for use in seroprevalence surveys.
Flower B, Brown JC, Simmons B, et al., 2020, Clinical and laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for use in a national COVID-19 sero-prevalence survey, Thorax, Vol: 75, Pages: 1082-1088, ISSN: 0040-6376
BackgroundAccurate antibody tests are essential to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver testing at scale. However, reported performance varies, and sensitivity analyses have generally been conducted on serum from hospitalised patients. For use in community testing, evaluation of finger-prick self-tests, in non-hospitalised individuals, is required.MethodsSensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and were ≥21d from symptom-onset. In phase I we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger-prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to a) PCR-confirmed infection and b) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two “in-house” ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 pre-pandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum.Findings95% (95%CI [92.2, 97.3]) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8/11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21%-92% vs PCR-confirmed cases and 22%-96% vs composite ELISA positives. Concordance between finger-prick and serum testing was at best moderate (kappa 0.56) and, at worst, slight (kappa 0.13). All LFIAs had high specificity (97.2% - 99.8%).InterpretationLFIA sensitivity and sample concordance is variable, highlighting the importance of evaluations in setting of intended use. This rigorous approach to LFIA evaluation identified a test with high specificity (98.6% (95%CI [97.1, 99.4])), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with fingerprick (95%CI [70.5, 93.5])), and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.
Bowman LR, Kwok KO, Redd RE, et al., 2020, Public perceptions and preventive behaviours during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparative study between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom
<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>In the absence of treatments and vaccines, the mitigation of COVID-19 relies on population engagement in non-pharmaceutical interventions, which is driven by their risk perception, anxiety level and knowledge. There may also be regional discrepancies in these drivers due to different historical exposure to disease outbreaks, government responses and cultures. As such, this study compared psycho-behavioral responses in two regions during the early phase of the pandemic.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Comparable cross-sectional surveys were administered among adults in Hong Kong (HK) and the United Kingdom (UK) during the early phase of each respective epidemic. Explanatory variables included demographics, risk perception and knowledge of COVID-19, anxiety level and preventive behaviors. Responses were weighted according to census data. Logistic regression models, including interaction terms to quantify regional differences, were used to assess the association between explanatory variables and the adoption of social-distancing measures.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Data of 3431 complete responses (HK:1663; UK:1768) were analysed. Perceived severity differed by region (HK: 97.5%; UK: 20.7%). A large proportion of respondents were abnormally/borderline anxious (HK:64.8%; UK:45.9%) and regarded direct contact with infected individuals as the transmission route of COVID-19 (HK:94.0-98.5%; UK:69.2-93.5%), with HK identifying additional routes. HK reported high levels of adoption of social-distancing (HK:32.4-93.7%; UK:17.6-59.0%) and mask-wearing (HK:98.8%; UK:3.1%). The impact of perceived severity and perceived ease of transmission on the adoption of social-distancing varied by region. In HK, they had no
Riley S, Ainslie KEC, Eales O, et al., 2020, Transient dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 as England exited national lockdown
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Control of the COVID-19 pandemic requires a detailed understanding of prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the population. Case-based surveillance is necessarily biased towards symptomatic individuals and sensitive to varying patterns of reporting in space and time. The real-time assessment of community transmission antigen study (REACT-1) is designed to overcome these limitations by obtaining prevalence data based on a nose and throat swab RT-PCR test among a representative community-based sample in England, including asymptomatic individuals. Here, we describe results comparing rounds 1 and 2 carried out during May and mid June / early July 2020 respectively across 315 lower tier local authority areas. In round 1 we found 159 positive samples from 120,620 tested swabs while round 2 there were 123 positive samples from 159,199 tested swabs, indicating a downwards trend in prevalence from 0.13% (95% CI, 0.11%, 0.15%) to 0.077% (0.065%, 0.092%), a halving time of 38 (28, 58) days, and an R of 0.89 (0.86, 0.93). The proportion of swab-positive participants who were asymptomatic at the time of sampling increased from 69% (61%, 76%) in round 1 to 81% (73%, 87%) in round 2. Although health care and care home workers were infected far more frequently than other workers in round 1, the odds were markedly reduced in round 2. Age patterns of infection changed between rounds, with a reduction by a factor of five in prevalence in 18 to 24 year olds. Our data were suggestive of increased risk of infection in Black and Asian (mainly South Asian) ethnicities. Using regional and detailed case location data, we detected increased infection intensity in and near London. Under multiple sensitivity analyses, our results were robust to the possibility of false positives. At the end of the initial lockdown in England, we found continued decline in prevalence and a shift in the pattern of infection by age and occupation. Community-b
Bowman L, Kwok KO, Redd R, et al., 2020, Comparing Public Perceptions and Preventive Behaviors During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom: Cross-sectional Survey Study (Preprint)
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> <p>Given the public health responses to previous respiratory disease pandemics, and in the absence of treatments and vaccines, the mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic relies on population engagement in nonpharmaceutical interventions. This engagement is largely driven by risk perception, anxiety levels, and knowledge, as well as by historical exposure to disease outbreaks, government responses, and cultural factors.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> <p>The aim of this study is to compare psychobehavioral responses in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> <p>Comparable cross-sectional surveys were administered to adults in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom during the early phase of the epidemic in each setting. Explanatory variables included demographics, risk perception, knowledge of COVID-19, anxiety level, and preventive behaviors. Responses were weighted according to census data. Logistic regression models, including effect modification to quantify setting differences, were used to assess the association between the explanatory variables and the adoption of social distancing measures.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> <p>Data from 3431 complete responses (Hong Kong, 1663; United Kingdom, 1768) were analyzed. Perceived severity of symptoms differed by setting, with weighted percentages of 96.8% for Hong Kong (1621/1663) and 19.9% for the United Kingdom (366/1768). A large proportion of respondents were abnor
Papageorgiou V, Cooper E, Bruton J, et al., 2020, Insight Report: COVID-19 Community Involvement - “Let’s Talk About…HIV Care”
This informal session led by the Patient Experience Research Centre (PERC), in collaboration with Positively UK, invited people living with, affected by, or working in HIV to share their experience, views, questions and concerns on accessing HIV care during COVID-19. The aim of the call was to gather feedback on specific areas to help guide a proposed qualitative (interview-based study) looking to explore experiences, specifically on:1. Challenges and concerns in managing HIV care during COVID-192. Challenges in the provision of HIV care during COVID-193. Opportunities presented for HIV care during COVID-19We also wished to inspire new ways to rapidly engage and involve communities remotely during a public health emergency, through strengthening partnerships with existing groups (in this case, Positively UK).
Buitendijk S, Ward H, Shimshon G, et al., 2020, COVID-19: an opportunity to rethink global cooperation in higher education and research, BMJ Global Health, Vol: 5, Pages: e002790-e002790, ISSN: 2059-7908
Rhodes RE, Guerrero MD, Vanderloo LM, et al., 2020, Development of a consensus statement on the role of the family in the physical activity, sedentary, and sleep behaviours of children and youth, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, Vol: 17
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 105
Papageorgiou V, Singer A, Cooper E, et al., 2020, PROSPERO Registration: A systematic review of social determinants and HIV treatment outcomes among people living with HIV in high-income countries, PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews
Delisle TG, D'souza N, Benton S, et al., 2020, Faecal Immunochemical Test Acceptability When Used in Symptomatic Patients to Rule Out Colorectal Cancer, International Surgical Conference of the Association-of-Surgeons-in-Training, Publisher: WILEY, Pages: 79-79, ISSN: 0007-1323
Luna Puerta L, Kendall W, Davies B, et al., 2020, The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: a scoping review, Health Expectations, Vol: 23, ISSN: 1369-6513
BackgroundBiobanks increasingly employ public involvement and engagement strategies, though few studies have explored their impact. This review aims to (a) investigate how the impact of public involvement in biobanks is reported and conceptualized by study authors; in order to (b) suggest how the research community might re‐conceptualize the impact of public involvement in biobanks.MethodsA systematic literature search of three electronic databases and the INVOLVE Evidence Library in January 2019. Studies commenting on the impact of public involvement in a biobank were included, and a narrative review was conducted.Results and discussionForty‐one studies covering thirty‐one biobanks were included, with varying degrees of public involvement. Impact was categorized according to where it was seen: ‘the biobank’, ‘people involved’ and ‘the wider research community’. Most studies reported involvement in a ‘functional’ way, in relation to improved rates of participation in the biobank. Broader forms of impact were reported but were vaguely defined and measured. This review highlights a lack of clarity of purpose and varied researcher conceptualizations of involvement. We pose three areas for further research and consideration by biobank researchers and public involvement practitioners.ConclusionsFunctional approaches to public involvement in biobanking limit impact. This conceptualization of involvement emerges from an entrenched technical understanding that ignores its political nature, complicated by long‐standing disagreement about the values of public involvement. This study urges a re‐imagination of impact, re‐conceptualized as a two‐way learning process. More support will help researchers and members of the public to undergo such reflective exercises.
Armano M, Audley H, Baird J, et al., 2020, Spacecraft and interplanetary contributions to the magnetic environment on-board LISA Pathfinder, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol: 494, Pages: 3014-3027, ISSN: 0035-8711
LISA Pathfinder (LPF) has been a space-based mission designed to test new technologies that will be required for a gravitational wave observatory in space. Magnetically driven forces play a key role in the instrument sensitivity in the low-frequency regime (mHz and below), the measurement band of interest for a space-based observatory. The magnetic field can couple to the magnetic susceptibility and remanent magnetic moment from the test masses and disturb them from their geodesic movement. LPF carried on-board a dedicated magnetic measurement subsystem with noise levels of 10 nT Hz−1/2 from 1 Hz down to 1 mHz. In this paper we report on the magnetic measurements throughout LPF operations. We characterize the magnetic environment within the spacecraft, study the time evolution of the magnetic field and its stability down to 20 μHz, where we measure values around 200 nT Hz−1/2, and identify two different frequency regimes, one related to the interplanetary magnetic field and the other to the magnetic field originating inside the spacecraft. Finally, we characterize the non-stationary component of the fluctuations of the magnetic field below the mHz and relate them to the dynamics of the solar wind.
Atchison CJ, Bowman L, Vrinten C, et al., 2020, Perceptions and behavioural responses of the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey of UK Adults, Publisher: medRxiv
Objective: To examine risk perceptions and behavioural responses of the UK adult population during the early phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK. Design: A cross-sectional survey Setting: Conducted with a nationally representative sample of UK adults within 48 hours of the UK Government advising the public to stop non-essential contact with others and all unnecessary travel. Participants: 2,108 adults living in the UK aged 18 years and over. Data were collected between March 17 and 18 2020. Main outcome measures: Descriptive statistics for all survey questions, including the number of respondents and the weighted percentages. Logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic variation in: (1) adoption of social-distancing measures, (2) ability to work from home, and (3) willingness and (4) ability to self-isolate. Results Overall, 1,992 (94.2%) respondents reported taking at least one preventive measure: 85.8% washed their hands with soap more frequently; 56.5% avoided crowded areas and 54.5% avoided social events. Adoption of social-distancing measures was higher in those aged over 70 compared to younger adults aged 18 to 34 years (aOR:1.9; 95% CI:1.1 to 3.4). Those with the lowest household income were six times less likely to be able to work from home (aOR:0.16; 95% CI:0.09 to 0.26) and three times less likely to be able to self-isolate (aOR:0.31; 95% CI:0.16 to 0.58). Ability to self-isolate was also lower in black and minority ethnic groups (aOR:0.47; 95% CI:0.27 to 0.82). Willingness to self-isolate was high across all respondents. Conclusions The ability to adopt and comply with certain NPIs is lower in the most economically disadvantaged in society. Governments must implement appropriate social and economic policies to mitigate this. By incorporating these differences in NPIs among socio-economic subpopulations into mathematical models of COVID-19 transmission dynamics, our modelling of epidemic outcomes and response to COVID-19 can be improved.
Pristera P, Papageorgiou V, Kaur M, et al., 2020, Report 14: Online community involvement in COVID-19 research & outbreak response: early insights from a UK perspective
The Patient Experience Research Centre (PERC) at Imperial College London is developing research to explore and understand people’s views about, experiences of and behavioural responses to the outbreak in the UK and elsewhere. To guide that effort and to help inform COVID-19 research and responses more broadly - for example in mathematical modelling and policy - PERC launched an online community involvement initiative that sought rapid, early insight from members of the public and aimed to establish a network for ongoing community engagement.Priority areas for COVID-19 research Vaccine development was considered the most urgent research priority for many respondents. Social studies exploring the public’s experiences, risk perceptions and behaviours during this outbreak were necessary and important according to 95% of the respondents. Such research could:Improve the way the current outbreak response is planned and implemented;Improve the way information and guidance is provided to and understood by the public;Optimise the support provided to communities and vulnerable groups; andImprove future outbreak preparedness.Other recommended areas of research included:Understanding the role of the media in influencing how people react and respond;Furthering our basic understanding of the virus – how it spreads, who it affects the most and why, and whether people achieve and maintain immunity after being infected;Critiquing the UK’s response to the pandemic against that of other countries; andEnsuring lessons can be learnt from this outbreak to better equip us for future outbreaks, and public health emergencies in general.Key unmet needs amongst communities The main challenges described by respondents were ineffective communication, including access to information and information overload; and conflicting guidance and misinformation. Respondents’ described feelings of concern, confusion and, in some cases, panic as a result of these communication a
Armano M, Audley H, Baird J, et al., 2020, Analysis of the accuracy of actuation electronics in the laser interferometer space antenna pathfinder, REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS, Vol: 91, ISSN: 0034-6748
Atchison C, Bowman L, Eaton J, et al., 2020, Report 10: Public response to UK Government recommendations on COVID-19: population survey, 17-18 March 2020, 10
On Monday 16th March 2020 the UK government announced new actions to control COVID-19. These recommendations directly affected the entire UK population, and included the following: stop non-essential contact with others; stop all unnecessary travel; start working from home where possible; avoid pubs, clubs, theatres and other such social venues; and to isolate at home for 14 days if anyone in the household has a high temperature or a new and continuous cough. To capture public sentiment towards these recommendations, a YouGov survey was commissioned by the Patient Experience Research Centre (PERC), Imperial College London. The survey was completed by 2,108 UK adults between the dates of 17th – 18th March 2020. The survey results show the following:• 77% reported being worried about the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK.• 48% of adults who have not tested positive for COVID-19 believe it is likely they will be infected at some point in the future.• 93% of adults reported personally taking at least one measure to protect themselves from COVID-19 infection, including:o 83% washed their hands more frequently;o 52% avoided crowded areas;o 50% avoided social events;o 36% avoided public transport;o 31% avoided going out;o 11% avoided going to work;o 28% avoided travel to areas outside the UK.• There is high reported ability and willingness to self-isolate for 7 days* if advised to do so by a health professional (88%).• However only 44% reported being able to work from home. This was higher among managerial and professional workers (60%) than manual, semi-skilled, and casual workers (19%)^, reflecting less flexible job roles for manual and lower grade workers. • 71% reported changing behaviour in response to government guidance. The figure (53%) was lower for young adults (18-24 year-olds).• Hand washing (63%), avoiding persons with symptoms (61%), and covering your sneeze (53%) were more likely to be perceived as ‘very effective&rs
Papageorgiou V, Wharton-Smith A, Campos-Matos I, et al., 2020, Patient data-sharing for immigration enforcement: a qualitative study of healthcare providers in England, BMJ Open, Vol: 10, ISSN: 2044-6055
Aim: To explore healthcare providers’ perceptions and experiences of the implications of a patient data-sharing agreement between National Health Service (NHS) Digital and the Home Office on access to NHS services and quality of care received by migrant patients in England.Design: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, thematic analysis and constant-comparison approach.Participants: Eleven healthcare providers and one non-clinical volunteer working in community or hospital-based settings who had experience of migrants accessing NHS England services. Interviews were carried out in 2018.Setting: England.Results: Awareness and understanding of the patient data-sharing agreement varied among participants, who associated this with a perceived lack of transparency by the government. Participants provided insight into how they thought the data-sharing agreement was negatively influencing migrants’ health-seeking behaviour, their relationship with clinicians and the safety and quality of their care. They referred to the policy as a challenge to their core ethical principles, explicitly patient confidentiality and trust, which varied depending on their clinical specialty.Conclusions: A perceived lack of transparency during the policy development process can result in suspicion or mistrust towards government among the health workforce, patients and public, which is underpinned by a notion of power or control. The patient data-sharing agreement was considered a threat to some of the core principles of the NHS and its implementation as adversely affecting healthcare access and patient safety. Future policy development should involve a range of stakeholders including civil society, healthcare professionals and ethicists, and include more meaningful assessments of the impact on healthcare and public health.
Riley S, Atchison C, Ashby D, et al., 2020, REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) of SARS-CoV-2 virus: Study protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations], Wellcome Open Research, Vol: 5, Pages: 1-17
Background: England, UK has one of the highest rates of confirmed COVID-19 mortality globally. Until recently, testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus focused mainly on healthcare and care home settings. As such, there is far less understanding of community transmission. Protocol: The REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) programme is a major programme of home testing for COVID-19 to track progress of the infection in the community. REACT-1 involves cross-sectional surveys of viral detection (virological swab for RT-PCR) tests in repeated samples of 100,000 to 150,000 randomly selected individuals across England. This examines how widely the virus has spread and how many people are currently infected. The age range is 5 years and above. Individuals are sampled from the England NHS patient list. REACT-2 is a series of five sub-studies towards establishing the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in England as an indicator of historical infection. The main study (study 5) uses the same design and sampling approach as REACT-1 using a self-administered lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test for IgG antibodies in repeated samples of 100,000 to 200,000 adults aged 18 years and above. To inform study 5, studies 1-4 evaluate performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 LFIAs (study 1) and different aspects of feasibility, usability and application of LFIAs for home-based testing in different populations (studies 2-4). Ethics and dissemination: The study has ethical approval. Results are reported using STROBE guidelines and disseminated through reports to public health bodies, presentations at scientific meetings and open access publications. Conclusions: This study provides robust estimates of the prevalence of both virus (RT-PCR, REACT-1) and seroprevalence (antibody, REACT-2) in the general population in England. We also explore acceptability and usability of LFIAs for self-administered testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibody in a home-based setting, not done before at
Ward H, Cooke G, Atchison C, et al., 2020, Declining prevalence of antibody positivity to SARS-CoV-2: a community study of 365,000 adults
Background The prevalence and persistence of antibodies following a peak SARS-CoV-2 infection provides insights into its spread in the community, the likelihood of reinfection and potential for some level of population immunity.Methods Prevalence of antibody positivity in England, UK (REACT2) with three cross-sectional surveys between late June and September 2020. 365104 adults used a self-administered lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test for IgG. A laboratory comparison of LFIA results to neutralization activity in panel of sera was performed.Results There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds. Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% [5.8, 6.1], to 4.8% [4.7, 5.0] and 4.4% [4.3, 4.5], a fall of 26.5% [-29.0, −23.8] over the three months of the study. There was a decline between rounds 1 and 3 in all age groups, with the highest prevalence of a positive result and smallest overall decline in positivity in the youngest age group (18-24 years: −14.9% [-21.6, −8.1]), and lowest prevalence and largest decline in the oldest group (75+ years: −39.0% [-50.8, −27.2]); there was no change in antibody positivity between rounds 1 and 3 in healthcare workers (+3.45% [-5.7, +12.7]).The decline from rounds 1 to 3 was largest in those who did not report a history of COVID-19, (−64.0% [-75.6, −52.3]), compared to −22.3% ([-27.0, −17.7]) in those with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed on PCR.Discussion These findings provide evidence of variable waning in antibody positivity over time such that, at the start of the second wave of infection in England, only 4.4% of adults had detectable IgG antibodies using an LFIA. Antibody positivity was greater in those who reported a positive PCR and lower in older people and those with asymptomatic infection. These data suggest the possibility of decreasing population immunity and increasing risk of rei
Riley S, Atchison C, Ashby D, et al., 2020, REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) of SARS-CoV-2 virus: Study protocol., Wellcome open research, Vol: 5, ISSN: 2398-502X
<b>Background:</b> England, UK has one of the highest rates of confirmed COVID-19 mortality globally. Until recently, testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus focused mainly on healthcare and care home settings. As such, there is far less understanding of community transmission. <b>Protocol:</b> The REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) programme is a major programme of home testing for COVID-19 to track progress of the infection in the community. REACT-1 involves cross-sectional surveys of viral detection (virological swab for RT-PCR) tests in repeated samples of 100,000 to 150,000 randomly selected individuals across England. This examines how widely the virus has spread and how many people are currently infected. The age range is 5 years and above. Individuals are sampled from the England NHS patient list. REACT-2 is a series of five sub-studies towards establishing the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in England as an indicator of historical infection. The main study (study 5) uses the same design and sampling approach as REACT-1 using a self-administered lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test for IgG antibodies in repeated samples of 100,000 to 200,000 adults aged 18 years and above. To inform study 5, studies 1-4 evaluate performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 LFIAs (study 1) and different aspects of feasibility, usability and application of LFIAs for home-based testing in different populations (studies 2-4). <b>Ethics and dissemination:</b> The study has ethical approval. Results are reported using STROBE guidelines and disseminated through reports to public health bodies, presentations at scientific meetings and open access publications. <b>Conclusions:</b> This study provides robust estimates of the prevalence of both virus (RT-PCR, REACT-1) and seroprevalence (antibody, REACT-2) in the general population in England. We also explore acceptability and usability of LFIAs for self-administered
Gupta A, Jayes LR, Holmes S, et al., 2020, Management of Fracture Risk in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Building a UK Consensus Through Healthcare Professional and Patient Engagement, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE, Vol: 15, Pages: 1377-1390, ISSN: 1178-2005
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 2
Riley S, Atchison C, Ashby D, et al., 2020, REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) of SARS-CoV-2 virus: Study protocol., Wellcome Open Res, Vol: 5, ISSN: 2398-502X
Background: England, UK has one of the highest rates of confirmed COVID-19 mortality globally. Until recently, testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus focused mainly on healthcare and care home settings. As such, there is far less understanding of community transmission. Protocol: The REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) programme is a major programme of home testing for COVID-19 to track progress of the infection in the community. REACT-1 involves cross-sectional surveys of viral detection (virological swab for RT-PCR) tests in repeated samples of 100,000 to 150,000 randomly selected individuals across England. This examines how widely the virus has spread and how many people are currently infected. The age range is 5 years and above. Individuals are sampled from the England NHS patient list. REACT-2 is a series of five sub-studies towards establishing the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in England as an indicator of historical infection. The main study (study 5) uses the same design and sampling approach as REACT-1 using a self-administered lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test for IgG antibodies in repeated samples of 100,000 to 200,000 adults aged 18 years and above. To inform study 5, studies 1-4 evaluate performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 LFIAs (study 1) and different aspects of feasibility, usability and application of LFIAs for home-based testing in different populations (studies 2-4). Ethics and dissemination: The study has ethical approval. Results are reported using STROBE guidelines and disseminated through reports to public health bodies, presentations at scientific meetings and open access publications. Conclusions: This study provides robust estimates of the prevalence of both virus (RT-PCR, REACT-1) and seroprevalence (antibody, REACT-2) in the general population in England. We also explore acceptability and usability of LFIAs for self-administered testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibody in a home-based setting, not done before at
Ward H, 2019, Numbers and narratives: approaches to understanding patients’ experiences, XPA & Health Communication, Vol: 2, ISSN: 2604-0999
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.