ArticleBMJ public health2024
Exploring the attitudes of solid organ transplant recipients towards COVID-19 shielding communications and the language of 'clinically extremely vulnerable': a qualitative study investigating lessons for the future.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients were among the first individuals in the UK identified as 'clinically extremely vulnerable' (CEV) to COVID-19 and asked to 'shield' at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. This qualitative study explores the attitudes of SOT recipients towards COVID-19 shielding communications and the language used. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 43 adult heart, liver and kidney transplant recipients in England between January 2022 and May 2023. Open-ended questions enabled participants to fully explore their experiences of the pandemic and how they felt towards the shielding advice they received. Interviews were transcribed, anonymised and thematically analysed and coded using NVivo V.12. Results: Communications about shielding evoked significant fear and anxiety among participants. These communications were perceived as implying that death was probable, or even inevitable, should they leave their home or fail to follow the official advice. Participants expressed widespread dislike for the term 'CEV', with the word 'vulnerable' being particularly difficult for participants to accept owing to its connotations of weakness and the reminder that participants were not as 'normal' as they typically felt. While shielding restrictions have come to an end, longer term impacts were highlighted by participants who expressed ongoing anxiety, with many still choosing to shield and wear a mask if in public. Conclusions: This study suggests that governments and health authorities should carefully consider how they communicate with individuals with underlying health conditions in future public health emergencies. We have developed recommendations for how to improve shielding communications in the future, including replacing the phrase 'CEV' with that of 'higher risk', avoiding using those at higher risk as a national benchmark for risk of illness and death and providing more balanced and engaged communication and advice that takes into consideration the importance of mental well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.