Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33780897›Full record

ArticlePublic health2021

Public health information on COVID-19 for international travellers: lessons learned from a mixed-method evaluation.

T Zhang, C Robin, S Cai, C Sawyer, W Rice, L E Smith, R Amlôt, G J Rubin, R Reynolds, L Yardley and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Lessons Learned from the Lessons Learned in Public Health during the First Years of COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

T ZhangPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
C RobinField Epidemiology, Field Service, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
S CaiPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
C SawyerUK Field Epidemiology Training Programme, Global Public Health Division, Public Health England, London, UK; Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Public Health Wales, Cardiff, UK.
W RiceField Epidemiology, Field Service, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Bristol, UK.
L E SmithInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, London, UK.
R AmlôtNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, London, UK; Behavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, Public Health England, UK.
G J RubinInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, London, UK.
R ReynoldsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
L YardleyNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; School of Psychological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
M HickmanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
I OliverPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Field Epidemiology, Field Service, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
H LambertPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Electronic address: h.lambert@bristol.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19071
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn the containment phase of the response to the COVID-19 outbreak, Public Health England (PHE) delivered advice to travellers arriving at major UK ports. We aimed to rapidly evaluate the impact and effectiveness of these communication materials for passengers in the early stages of the pandemic. STUDY

designThe study design used is the mixed-methods evaluation.

methodsA questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews with passengers arriving at London Heathrow Airport on scheduled flights from China and Singapore. The survey assessed passengers' knowledge of symptoms, actions to take, and attitudes towards PHE COVID-19 public health information; interviews explored their views of official public health information and self-isolation.

resultsOne hundred and twenty-one passengers participated in the survey and 15 in follow-up interviews. Eighty three percentage of surveyed passengers correctly identified all three COVID-19 associated symptoms listed in PHE information at that time. Most could identify the recommended actions and found the advice understandable and trustworthy. Interviews revealed that passengers shared concerns about the lack of wider official action, and that passengers' knowledge had been acquired elsewhere as much from PHE. Respondents also noted their own agency in choosing to self-isolate, partially as a self-protective measure.

conclusionPHE COVID-19 public health information was perceived as clear and acceptable, but we found that passengers acquired knowledge from various sources and they saw the provision of information alone on arrival as an insufficient official response. Our study provides fresh insights into the importance of taking greater account of diverse information sources and of the need for public assurance in creating public health information materials to address global health threats.

Indexed as

Air TravelConsumer Health InformationInternationalityPublic HealthAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAirportsCOVID-19FemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesAirportCOVID-19GovernmentInternational travelPolicyPublic health advice

Identifiers

PMID33780897
PMCPMC7874910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.