Dataset Information

Perspectives on COVID-19 testing policies and practices: a qualitative study with scientific advisors and NHS health care workers in England.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As COVID-19 death rates have risen and health-care systems have experienced increased demand, national testing strategies have come under scrutiny. Utilising qualitative interview data from a larger COVID-19 study, this paper provides insights into influences on and the enactment of national COVID-19 testing strategies for health care workers (HCWs) in English NHS settings during wave one of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-August 2020). Through the findings we aim to inform learning about COVID-19 testing policies and practices; and to inform future pandemic diagnostic preparedness.

Methods

A remote qualitative, semi-structured longitudinal interview method was employed with a purposive snowball sample of senior scientific advisors to the UK Government on COVID-19, and HCWs employed in NHS primary and secondary health care settings in England. Twenty-four interviews from 13 participants were selected from the larger project dataset using a key term search, as not all of the transcripts contained references to testing. Framework analysis was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability of patient-facing health and care technologies implementation framework (NASSS) and by normalisation process theory (NPT).

Results

Our account highlights tensions between the communication and implementation of national testing developments; scientific advisor and HCW perceptions about infectiousness; and uncertainties about the responsibility for testing and its implications at the local level.

Conclusions

Consideration must be given to the implications of mass NHS staff testing, including the accuracy of information communicated to HCWs; how HCWs interpret, manage, and act on testing guidance; and the influence these have on health care organisations and services.

SUBMITTER: Martindale AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8224254 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEven though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented.MethodsIn this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders' perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art.ResultsA total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system.ConclusionsThis research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Developed in dialogue with WHO, this research aims to incorporate lived experience and views in the refinement of the International Classification of Diseases Mental and Behavioural Disorders 11th Revision (ICD-11). The validity and clinical utility of psychiatric diagnostic systems has been questioned by both service users and clinicians, as not all aspects reflect their lived experience or are user friendly. This is critical as evidence suggests that diagnosis can impact service user experience, identity, service use and outcomes. Feedback and recommendations from service users and clinicians should help minimise the potential for unintended negative consequences and improve the accuracy, validity and clinical utility of the ICD-11. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The name INCLUDE reflects the value of expertise by experience as all aspects of the proposed study are co-produced. Feedback on the planned criteria for the ICD-11 will be sought through focus groups with service users and clinicians. The data from these groups will be coded and inductively analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Findings from this will be used to form the basis of co-produced recommendations for the ICD-11. Two service user focus groups will be conducted for each of these diagnoses: Personality Disorder, Bipolar I Disorder, Schizophrenia, Depressive Disorder and Generalised Anxiety Disorder. There will be four focus groups with clinicians (psychiatrists, general practitioners and clinical psychologists). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has received ethical approval from the Coventry and Warwickshire HRA Research Ethics Committee (16/WM/0479). The output for the project will be recommendations that reflect the views and experiences of experts by experience (service users and clinicians). The findings will be disseminated via conferences and peer-reviewed publications. As the ICD is an international tool, the aim is for the methodology to be internationally disseminated for replication by other groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03131505.

Project description:BackgroundStudies on the impact of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID) for healthcare workers (HCWs) rarely include the full spectrum of hospital workers, including less visible patient support roles. In the early days of the pandemic, COVID testing was preferentially available to HCWs. The objective of this study was to understand how individual experiences for all HCWs during the pandemic were associated with perceptions of access to, and receipt of COVID testing .MethodsAll hospital employees (n = 6736) in a single academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey regarding perceived access to, and receipt of COVID testing during the first wave of the pandemic (March - August 2020). Responses were linked to human resources data. Log binomial univariate and multivariable models were used to estimate associations between individual and employment variables and COVID testing.ResultsA total of 2543 employees responded to the survey (38 %). The mean age was 40 years (± 14). Respondents were female (76 %), white (55 %), worked as nurses (27 %), administrators (22 %) and patient support roles (22 %); 56 % of respondents wanted COVID testing. Age (RR 0.91, CI 0.88-0.93), full time status (RR 0.85, CI 0.79-0.92), employment tenure (RR 0.96, CI 0.94-0.98), changes in quality of life (RR 0.94, CI 0.91-0.96), changes in job duties (RR 1.19, CI 1.03-1.37), and worry about enough paid sick leave (RR 1.21, CI 1.12-1.30) were associated with interest in testing. Administrators (RR 0.64, CI 0.58-0.72) and patient support staff (RR 0.85, CI 0.78-0.92) were less likely than nurses to want testing. Age (RR 1.04, CI 1.01-1.07), material hardships (RR 0.87, CI 0.79-0.96), and employer sponsored insurance (RR 1.10, CI 1.00-1.22) were associated with receiving a COVID test. Among all employees, only administrative/facilities staff were less likely to receive COVID testing (RR 0.69, CI 0.59-0.79).ConclusionsThis study adds to our understanding of how hospital employees view availability of COVID testing. Hazard pay or other supports for hospital workers may increase COVID testing rates. These findings may be applicable to perceived barriers towards vaccination receipt.