Mixed-methods process evaluation of a residence-based SARS-CoV-2 testing participation pilot on a UK university campus during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mixed-methods process evaluation of a residence-based SARS-CoV-2 testing participation pilot on a UK university campus during the COVID-19 pandemic.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12889-022-13792-8
复制
发表时间：
2022-08-02
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
在新冠肺炎大流行期间，定期检测严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)是控制大学校园病毒爆发的重要策略，但检测参与率可能较低。基于居住地的测试参与试点(RB-TPP)是在英国一所大型大学校园的两个学生公寓实施的一项新的干预措施，为期4周。试点的目的是增加现场无症状SARS-CoV-2唾液检测的频率。这一进程评估旨在确定RB-TPP是否按计划实施，并确定实施障碍和促进者。在RB-TPP的同时进行了混合方法的过程评估。评估参与者是学生(选择加入或退出RB-TPP)和在提供服务或学生支持方面发挥作用的工作人员。监测数据从干预交付团队和会议记录中收集。数据是通过在线调查从学生(n= 152)和七个焦点小组(n= 30)收集的，并通过个人访谈从工作人员(n= 13)收集的。定量数据采用描述性分析，定性数据采用主题分析。实施的障碍和促进者被映射到“能力、机会、动机-行为”(COM-B)行为改变框架。464名学生选择参加RB-TPP(98%的学生住在现场)。RB-TPP按计划广泛实施，但由于担心新冠肺炎三角洲变体在全国范围内升级，放松的社会距离提前终止，尽管测试仍在继续。大多数学生(97.9%)对居所内社会疏远放松的时期持肯定态度。大多数人从事无症状测试(88%)；46%(52%的测试者)完全符合预定的测试频率。测试的便利性和效率促进了测试的实施，并通过给学生社交的机会减少了孤立的负面影响。实施的主要障碍是人们对规则的信息含混不清，矛盾的态度，以及少数群体缺乏对新冠肺炎保护措施的遵守。这一过程评估确定了有助于或阻碍以大学居住地为基础的疫情预防和管理战略取得成功的因素。RB-TPP导致大学宿舍学生SARS-CoV-2检测参与率增加。人们对大学生活正常化的感知显著提高了学生的心理健康。多条沟通渠道和迅速适应不断变化的大流行病背景所产生的复杂性和挑战是显而易见的。UKAS 307727-02-01；预告。ClinicalTrials.gov标识：NCT05045989；发布结果(首次发布，16/09/21)。诺丁汉大学医学与健康科学学院和研究伦理委员会(参考文献：FMHS96-0920)在线版本包含补充材料，可在10.1186/s12889-022-022-8找到。
Regular testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an important strategy for controlling virus outbreaks on university campuses during the COVID-19 pandemic but testing participation rates can be low. The Residence-Based Testing Participation Pilot (RB-TPP) was a novel intervention implemented at two student residences on a large UK university campus over 4 weeks. The aim of the pilot was to increase the frequency of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 saliva testing onsite. This process evaluation aimed to determine whether RB-TPP was implemented as planned and identify implementation barriers and facilitators. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside the RB-TPP. Evaluation participants were students (opting in, or out of RB-TPP) and staff with a role in service provision or student support. Monitoring data were collected from the intervention delivery team and meeting records. Data were collected from students via online survey (n = 152) and seven focus groups (n = 30), and from staff via individual interviews (n = 13). Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data thematically. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were mapped to the ‘Capability, Opportunity, Motivation–Behaviour’ (COM-B) behaviour change framework. Four hundred sixty-four students opted to participate in RB-TPP (98% of students living onsite). RB-TPP was implemented broadly as planned but relaxed social distancing was terminated early due to concerns relating to national escalation of the COVID-19 Delta variant, albeit testing continued. Most students (97.9%) perceived the period of relaxed social distancing within residences positively. The majority engaged in asymptomatic testing (88%); 46% (52% of testers) were fully compliant with pre-determined testing frequency. Implementation was facilitated by convenience and efficiency of testing, and reduction in the negative impacts of isolation through opportunities for students to socialise. Main barriers to implementation were perceived mixed-messages about the rules, ambivalent attitudes, and lack of adherence to COVID-19 protective measures in the minority. This process evaluation identifies factors that help or hinder the success of university residence-based outbreak prevention and management strategies. RB-TPP led to increased rates of SARS-CoV-2 testing participation among students in university residences. Perceived normalisation of university life significantly enhanced student mental wellbeing. The complexity and challenge generated by multiple lines of communication and rapid adaptions to a changing pandemic context was evident. UKAS 307727–02-01; Pre-results. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05045989; post-results (first posted, 16/09/21). Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee, University of Nottingham (Ref: FMHS 96-0920) The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13792-8.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.3390/ijerph182010675
发表时间：
2021-10-12
影响因子：
--
作者：
Knight H;Carlisle S;O'Connor M;Briggs L;Fothergill L;Al-Oraibi A;Yildirim M;Morling JR;Corner J;Ball J;Denning C;Vedhara K;Blake H
通讯作者：
Blake H
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Browning MHEM;Larson LR;Sharaievska I;Rigolon A;McAnirlin O;Mullenbach L;Cloutier S;Vu TM;Thomsen J;Reigner N;Metcalf EC;D'Antonio A;Helbich M;Bratman GN;Alvarez HO
通讯作者：
Alvarez HO
DOI：
10.3390/ijerph18084182
发表时间：
2021-04-15
影响因子：
--
作者：
Blake H;Knight H;Jia R;Corner J;Morling JR;Denning C;Ball JK;Bolton K;Figueredo G;Morris DE;Tighe P;Villalon AM;Ayling K;Vedhara K
通讯作者：
Vedhara K
DOI：
10.3390/ijerph18010188
发表时间：
2020-12-29
影响因子：
--
作者：
Blake H;Corner J;Cirelli C;Hassard J;Briggs L;Daly JM;Bennett M;Chappell JG;Fairclough L;McClure CP;Tarr A;Tighe P;Favier A;Irving W;Ball J
通讯作者：
Ball J
影响因子：
39.2
作者：
Kroenke, Kurt;Spitzer, Robert L.;Lowe, Bernd
通讯作者：
Lowe, Bernd