Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34999485›Full record

ArticlePublic health2022

Learning about COVID-19 across borders: public health information and adherence among international travellers to the UK.

S Cai, T Zhang, C Robin, C Sawyer, W Rice, L E Smith, R Amlôt, G J Rubin, L Yardley, M Hickman and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

12 authors.

S CaiPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
T ZhangPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
C RobinNational 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.
C SawyerCommunicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Public Health Wales, Cardiff, UK.
W RiceNational 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.
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; 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

objectivePublic health control measures at borders have long been central to national strategies for the prevention and containment of infectious diseases. Travel was inevitably associated with the rapid global transmission of COVID-19. In the UK, public health authorities tried to reduce the risks of travel-associated spread by providing public health information at ports of entry. This study investigates risk assessment processes, decision-making and adherence to official advice among international travellers, to provide evidence for future policy on the provision of public health information to facilitate safer international travel. STUDY

designThis study is a qualitative study evaluation.

methodInternational air passengers arriving at the London Heathrow Airport on scheduled flights from China and Singapore were approached for interview after consenting to contact in completed surveys. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone, using two topic guides to explore views of official public health information and self-isolation. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed thematically.

resultsParticipants regarded official advice from Public Health England as adequate at the time, despite observing differences with intervention measures implemented in their countries of departure. Most participants also described adopting precautionary measures, including self-isolation and the use of face coverings that went beyond official advice, but reported adherence to guidance on contacting health authorities was more variable. Adherence to the official guidance was informed by the perceived salience of specific transmission possibilities and containment measures assessed in relation to participants' local social and institutional environments.

conclusionAnalysis of study findings demonstrates that international air travellers' responses to public health advice constitute a proactive process of risk assessment and rationalised decision-making to guide preventive action. This process incorporates consideration of the current living situation, trust in information sources, correspondence with cultural logics and willingness to accept potential risk to self and significant others. Our findings concerning international passengers' understanding of, and compliance with, official advice and mitigation measures provide valuable evidence to inform future policy and generate recommendations on the presentation of public health information to facilitate safer international travel. Access to a central source of regularly updated official information would help minimise confusion between different national guidelines. Greater attention to the differentiated information needs of diverse groups in creating future public-facing guidance would help to minimise the uncertainties generated by the receipt of generic information.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2TravelUnited KingdomAdherenceAirportBehaviourCOVID-19International travelPrecautionary measuresPublic health advice

Identifiers

PMID34999485
PMCPMC8626225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.