Dataset Information

Infection Control Behavior at Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study of a Web-Based Behavioral Intervention (Germ Defence).

ABSTRACT:

Background

To control the COVID-19 pandemic, people should adopt protective behaviors at home (self-isolation, social distancing, putting shopping and packages aside, wearing face coverings, cleaning and disinfecting, and handwashing). There is currently limited support to help individuals conduct these behaviors.

Objective

This study aims to report current household infection control behaviors in the United Kingdom and examine how they might be improved.

Methods

This was a pragmatic cross-sectional observational study of anonymous participant data from Germ Defence between May 6-24, 2020. Germ Defence is an open-access fully automated website providing behavioral advice for infection control within households. A total of 28,285 users sought advice from four website pathways based on household status (advice to protect themselves generally, to protect others if the user was showing symptoms, to protect themselves if household members were showing symptoms, and to protect a household member who is at high risk). Users reported current infection control behaviors within the home and intentions to change these behaviors.

Results

Current behaviors varied across all infection control measures but were between sometimes (face covering: mean 1.61, SD 1.19; social distancing: mean 2.40, SD 1.22; isolating: mean 2.78, SD 1.29; putting packages and shopping aside: mean 2.75, SD 1.55) and quite often (cleaning and disinfecting: mean 3.17, SD 1.18), except for handwashing (very often: mean 4.00, SD 1.03). Behaviors were similar regardless of the website pathway used. After using Germ Defence, users recorded intentions to improve infection control behavior across all website pathways and for all behaviors (overall average infection control score mean difference 0.30, 95% CI 0.29-0.31).

Conclusions

Self-reported infection control behaviors other than handwashing are lower than is optimal for infection prevention, although handwashing is much higher. Advice using behavior change techniques in Germ Defence led to intentions to improve these behaviors. Promoting Germ Defence within national and local public health and primary care guidance could reduce COVID-19 transmission.

SUBMITTER: Ainsworth B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7909304 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Infection Control Behavior at Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study of a Web-Based Behavioral Intervention (Germ Defence).

Ainsworth Ben B Miller Sascha S Denison-Day James J Stuart Beth B Groot Julia J Rice Cathy C Bostock Jennifer J Hu Xiao-Yang XY Morton Katherine K Towler Lauren L Moore Michael M Willcox Merlin M Chadborn Tim T Gold Natalie N Amlôt Richard R Little Paul P Yardley Lucy L

Journal of medical Internet research 20210225 2

<h4>Background</h4>To control the COVID-19 pandemic, people should adopt protective behaviors at home (self-isolation, social distancing, putting shopping and packages aside, wearing face coverings, cleaning and disinfecting, and handwashing). There is currently limited support to help individuals conduct these behaviors.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aims to report current household infection control behaviors in the United Kingdom and examine how they might be improved.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a ...[more]

PMID: 33566791

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWashing hands helps prevent transmission of seasonal and pandemic respiratory viruses. In a randomized controlled trial (RCT) during the swine flu outbreak, participants with access to a fully automated, digital intervention promoting handwashing reported washing their hands more often and experienced fewer respiratory tract infections than those without access to the intervention. Based on these findings, the intervention was adapted, renamed as "Germ Defence," and a study was designed to assess the preliminary dissemination of the intervention to the general public to help prevent the spread of seasonal colds and flu.ObjectiveThis study compares the process evaluations of the RCT and Germ Defence dissemination to examine (1) how web-based research enrollment procedures affected those who used the intervention, (2) intervention usage in the 2 contexts, and (3) whether increased intentions to wash hands are replicated once disseminated.MethodsThe RCT ran between 2010 and 2012 recruiting participants offline from general practices, with restricted access to the intervention (N=9155). Germ Defence was disseminated as an open access website for use by the general public from 2016 to 2019 (N=624). The process evaluation plan was developed using Medical Research Council guidance and the framework for Analyzing and Measuring Usage and Engagement Data. Both interventions contained a goal-setting section where users self-reported current and intended handwashing behavior across 7 situations.ResultsDuring web-based enrolment, 54.3% (17,511/32,250) of the RCT participants dropped out of the study compared to 36.5% (358/982) of Germ Defence users. Having reached the start of the intervention, 93.8% (8586/9155) of RCT users completed the core section, whereas 65.1% (406/624) of Germ Defence users reached the same point. Users across both studies selected to increase their handwashing in 5 out of 7 situations, including before eating snacks (RCT mean difference 1.040, 95% CI 1.016-1.063; Germ Defence mean difference 0.949, 95% CI 0.766-1.132) and after blowing their nose, sneezing, or coughing (RCT mean difference 0.995, 95% CI 0.972-1.019; Germ Defence mean difference 0.842, 95% CI 0.675-1.008).ConclusionsBy comparing the preliminary dissemination of Germ Defence to the RCT, we were able to examine the potential effects of the research procedures on uptake and attrition such as the sizeable dropout during the RCT enrolment procedure that may have led to a more motivated sample. The Germ Defence study highlighted the points of attrition within the intervention. Despite sample bias in the trial context, the intervention replicated increases in intentions to handwash when used "in the wild." This preliminary dissemination study informed the adaptation of the intervention for the COVID-19 health emergency, and it has now been disseminated globally.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN75058295; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN75058295.

Project description:BackgroundWeb-based interventions have been shown to be effective for the treatment of depression. However, interventions are often complex and include a variety of elements, making it difficult to identify the most effective component(s).ObjectiveThe aim of this pilot study was to shed light on mechanisms in the online treatment of depression by comparing a single-module, fully automated intervention for depression (internet-based behavioral activation [iBA]) to a nonoverlapping active control intervention and a nonactive control group.MethodsWe assessed 104 people with at least mild depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, >4) via the internet at baseline (t0) and 2 weeks (t1) and 4 weeks (t2) later. After the t0 assessment, participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) iBA (n=37), (2) active control using a brief internet-based mindfulness intervention (iMBI, n=32), or (3) care as usual (CAU, n=35). The primary outcome was improvement in depressive symptoms, as measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Secondary parameters included changes in activity, dysfunctional attitudes, and quality of life.ResultsWhile groups did not differ regarding the change in depression from t0 to t1 (ηp2=.007, P=.746) or t0 to t2 (ηp2=.008, P=.735), iBA was associated with a larger decrease in dysfunctional attitudes from t0 to t2 in comparison to CAU (ηp2=.053, P=.04) and a larger increase in activity from t0 to t1 than the pooled control groups (ηp2=.060, P=.02). A change in depression from t0 to t2 was mediated by a change in activity from t0 to t1. At t1, 22% (6/27) of the participants in the iBA group and 12% (3/25) of the participants in the iMBI group indicated that they did not use the intervention.ConclusionsAlthough we did not find support for the short-term efficacy of the single-module iBA regarding depression, long-term effects are still conceivable, potentially initiated by changes in secondary outcomes. Future studies should use a longer intervention and follow-up interval.Trial registrationDKRS (#DRKS00011562).

Project description:ImportanceVirtual home-based interventions may bolster protective factors, such as family health and resilience, during stressors such as the COVID-19 pandemic; however, their effectiveness is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of a virtual health coaching intervention on family health and resilience during the pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsIn this parallel-group, single-site randomized clinical trial, 123 parents and their 2- to 8-year-old children were enrolled at a pediatric clinic or community partner site in Tennessee from March 10 to August 11, 2021. Follow-up surveys were completed between June 29 and November 11, 2021.InterventionsAll participants received 11 weekly cooking videos and associated home-delivered groceries. The intervention group also received 12 weekly, 30-minute virtual health coach sessions.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the validated 6-item (range, 6-30) Family Healthy Lifestyle Subscale (FHLS) scores. The secondary outcome was the validated 6-item (range, 0-6) Family Resilience and Connection Index (FRCI) scores. Outcomes were determined a priori and evaluated at baseline and 12-week follow-up. A priori independent t tests and multivariable tobit regression models assessed intervention effects, and post hoc, secondary interaction models assessed whether effects differed over baseline outcomes.ResultsAmong the 123 enrolled families, 110 (89%) were included in the primary analyses (parent mean [SD] age, 35.1 [8.2] years; 104 [95%] female; 55 [50%] non-Hispanic Black; child mean [SD] age, 5.2 [1.7] years; 62 [56%] male). Intervention-control group mean differences were nonsignificant for follow-up FHLS scores (0.7; 95% CI, -0.6 to 2.0; P = .17) and FRCI scores (0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.6; P = .74). Tobit regression model intervention effects were nonsignificant for FHLS scores (0.9; 95% CI, -0.3 to 2.2; P = .15) and FRCI scores (0.4; 95% CI, -0.2 to 1.1; P = .17). Post hoc, secondary models found no significant interaction for FHLS scores (1.3 increase per 5-point decrease; 95% CI, -0.2 to 2.7; P = .09), with significant intervention associations for baseline scores of 6 to 23. The interaction was significant for FRCI scores (0.4 increase per 1-point decrease; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.8; P = .047), with significant intervention associations for baseline scores of 0 to 3.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of families with young children, weekly virtual health coaching did not detectably improve family health and resilience. Post hoc, secondary results provided preliminary evidence of potential effectiveness among families with low baseline scores.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05328193.

Project description:BackgroundSedentary behavior (SB) is a significant risk factor for heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and early mortality, particularly among women, and the health consequences associated with SB are independent of physical activity status. Interventions utilizing wearable technologies can improve SB, but their effectiveness is influenced by individual preferences, device engagement strategies, and technological features, which may affect user compliance. Gathering a priori insight from target populations on their preferences for program tools and strategies may assist researchers in identifying effective methods to improve the efficacy of SB interventions.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to (1) explore the likeability (likes and dislikes) and usability (engagement intentions and navigation) of a wearable device (Movband) and its accompanying website (dashboard), (2) examine social incentive preferences (teammates), and (3) assess the feasibility (participants' experiences during an activity-monitoring period) of these tools for use in an intervention to reduce SB in girls and women.MethodsA total of 9 girls (mean age: 8.9 years, standard deviation [SD] 1.1 years) and 11 college-aged women (mean age: 22.6 years, SD 3.2 years) participated in this study. Separate focus groups were held for girls and women, and all participants attended one before and the other following a 7-day activity-monitoring period. During the focus groups, participants were prompted with questions to address the study aims, and the nominal group technique was used to compile lists of group-specific preferences for the activity-monitoring system. The top three ranking likes and dislikes were reverse coded to determine likeability.ResultsThe top-ranking responses for the girls and women were the following: visual display of movements and ease of navigation (dashboard like), boring to look at and no calorie-tracking function (dashboard dislike), backlight and long battery life (Movband like), and color and not waterproof (tied for girls) and vertical time display (Movband dislike). Additionally, participants identified several aesthetic preferences and functional limitations. At the second focus group visit, the majority of the participants self-reported less SB during the previous week. Objective data from the activity-monitoring period revealed that the average steps per day for girls and women were 12,373.4 (SD 2617.6) and 8515.8 (SD 3076.7), respectively.ConclusionsThese results suggest that the girls and women liked many features of the Movband and dashboard. However, several dislikes were mentioned, which may negatively influence compliance and the effectiveness of the activity-monitoring system and require improvements before using in an SB intervention.

Project description:BackgroundWeb-based and theory-based interventions for multiple health behaviors appears to be a promising approach with respect to the adoption and maintenance of a healthy lifestyle in cardiac patients who have been discharged from the hospital. Until now, no randomized controlled trials have tested this assumption among Chinese rehabilitation patients with coronary heart disease using a Web-based intervention.ObjectiveThe study aim was to evaluate the effect of an 8-week Web-based intervention in terms of physical activity (PA), fruit and vegetable consumption (FVC), lifestyle changes, social-cognitive outcomes, and health outcomes compared with a waiting control group in Chinese cardiac patients. The intervention content was theory-based on the health action process approach. Self-reported data were evaluated, including PA, FVC, healthy lifestyle (the synthesis of PA and FVC), internal resources (combination of intention, self-efficacy, and planning), and an external resource (social support) of PA and FVC behaviors, as well as perceived health outcomes (body mass index, quality of life, and depression).MethodsIn a randomized controlled trial, 136 outpatients with coronary heart disease from the cardiac rehabilitation center of a hospital in China were recruited. After randomization and exclusion of unsuitable participants, 114 patients were assigned to 1 of the 2 groups: (1) the intervention group: first 4 weeks on PA and subsequent 4 weeks on FVC and (2) the waiting control group. A total of 2 Web-based assessments were conducted, including 1 at the beginning of the intervention (T1, N=114), and 1 at the end of the 8-week intervention (T2, N=83). The enrollment and follow-up took place from December 2015 to May 2016.ResultsThe Web-based intervention outperformed the control condition for PA, FVC, internal resources of PA and FVC, and an external resource of FVC, with an eta-squared effect size ranging from 0.06 to 0.43. Furthermore, the intervention effect was seen in the improvement of quality of life (F1,79=16.36, P<.001, η2=.17). When predicting a healthy lifestyle at follow-up, baseline lifestyle (odds ratio, OR 145.60, 95% CI 11.24-1886; P<.001) and the intervention (OR 21.32, 95% CI 2.40-189.20; P=.006) were found to be significant predictors. Internal resources for FVC mediated the effect of the intervention on the adoption of a healthy lifestyle (R2adj=.29; P=.001), indicating that if the intervention increased the internal resource of behavior, the adoption of a healthy lifestyle was more likely.ConclusionsPatients' psychological resources such as motivation, self-efficacy, planning, and social support as well as lifestyle can be improved by a Web-based intervention that focuses on both PA and FVC. Such an intervention enriches extended rehabilitation approaches for cardiac patients to be active and remain healthy in daily life after hospital discharge.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01909349; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01909349 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pHV1A0G1).

Project description:Choices in the design and delivery of digital health behaviour interventions may have a direct influence on subsequent usage and engagement. Few studies have been able to make direct, detailed comparisons of differences in usage between interventions that are delivered via web or app. This study compared the usage of two versions of a digital stress management intervention, one delivered via a website (Healthy Paths) and the other delivered via an app (Healthy Mind). Design modifications were introduced within Healthy Mind to take account of reported differences in how individuals engage with websites compared to apps and mobile phones. Data were collected as part of an observational study nested within a broader exploratory trial of Healthy Mind. Objective usage of Healthy Paths and Healthy Mind were automatically recorded, including frequency and duration of logins, access to specific components within the intervention and order of page/screen visits. Usage was compared for a two week period following initial registration. In total, 381 participants completed the registration process for Healthy Paths (web) and 162 participants completed the registration process for Healthy Mind (app). App users logged in twice as often (Mdn?=?2.00) as web users (Mdn?=?1.00), U?=?13,059.50, p???0.001, but spent half as much time (Mdn?=?5.23?min) on the intervention compared to web users (Mdn?=?10.52?min), U?=?19,740.00, p???0.001. Visual exploration of usage patterns over time revealed that a significantly higher proportion of app users (n?=?126, 82.35%) accessed both types of support available within the intervention (i.e. awareness and change-focused tools) compared to web users (n?=?92, 40.17%), ?2(1, n?=?382)?=?66.60, p?<?0.001. This study suggests that the digital platform used to deliver an intervention (i.e. web versus app) and specific design choices (e.g. navigation, length and volume of content) may be associated with differences in how the intervention content is used. Broad summative usage data (e.g. total time spent on the intervention) may mask important differences in how an intervention is used by different user groups if it is not complemented by more fine-grained analyses of usage patterns over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN67177737.

Dataset Information

Infection Control Behavior at Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study of a Web-Based Behavioral Intervention (Germ Defence).

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Infection Control Behavior at Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study of a Web-Based Behavioral Intervention (Germ Defence).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets