We aimed to explore university students’ perceptions and experiences of SARS-CoV-2 mass asymptomatic testing, social distancing and self-isolation, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This qualitative study comprised of four rapid online focus groups conducted at a higher education institution in England, during high alert (tier 2) national COVID-19 restrictions. Participants were purposively sampled university students (n = 25) representing a range of gender, age, living circumstances (on/off campus), and SARS-CoV-2 testing/self-isolation experiences. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Six themes with 16 sub-themes emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data: ‘Term-time Experiences’, ‘Risk Perception and Worry’, ‘Engagement in Protective Behaviours’, ‘Openness to Testing’, ‘Barriers to Testing’ and ‘General Wellbeing’. Students described feeling safe on campus, believed most of their peers are adherent to protective behaviours and were positive towards asymptomatic testing in university settings. University communications about COVID-19 testing and social behaviours need to be timely and presented in a more inclusive way to reach groups of students who currently feel marginalised. Barriers to engagement with SARS-CoV-2 testing, social distancing and self-isolation were primarily associated with fear of the mental health impacts of self-isolation, including worry about how they will cope, high anxiety, low mood, guilt relating to impact on others and loneliness. Loneliness in students could be mitigated through increased intra-university communications and a focus on establishment of low COVID-risk social activities to help students build and enhance their social support networks. These findings are particularly pertinent in the context of mass asymptomatic testing programmes being implemented in educational settings and high numbers of students being required to self-isolate. Universities need to determine the support needs of students during self-isolation and prepare for the long-term impacts of the pandemic on student mental health and welfare support services.

Poor descriptions of standard care may compromise interpretation of results in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of health interventions. We investigated quality of standard care in RCTs of behaviour change interventions for young people with type 1 diabetes and consider implications for evaluating trial outcomes. We conducted systematic searches for articles published between 1999 and 2012. We extracted standard care descriptions and contacted trial authors to complete a checklist of standard care activities. The relationship between standard care quality and outcomes was examined via subgroup meta-analyses and meta-regression. Standard care descriptions, standard care quality, and relationships between standard care quality with medical and psychological outcomes. We identified 20 RCTs described across 26 articles. Published descriptions of standard care were limited to service-level features. Author responses indicated standard care provision extended beyond published accounts. Subgroup analyses suggested control groups receiving higher standard care quality showed larger improvements in both medical and psychological outcomes, although standard care quality did not predict outcomes significantly. The quality of care delivered to control group participants can influence outcomes of RCTs. Inadequate reporting exacerbates this issue by masking variations between trials. We argue for increased clarity in reporting standard care in future trials.

Influenza vaccination is estimated to only be effective in 17-53% of older adults. Multiple patient behaviors and psychological factors have been shown to act as 'immune modulators' sufficient to influence vaccination outcomes. However, the relative importance of such factors is unknown as they have typically been examined in isolation. The objective of the present study was to explore the effects of multiple behavioral (physical activity, nutrition, sleep) and psychological influences (stress, positive mood, negative mood) on the effectiveness of the immune response to influenza vaccination in the elderly. A prospective, diary-based longitudinal observational cohort study was conducted. One hundred and thirty-eight community-dwelling older adults (65-85years) who received the 2014/15 influenza vaccination completed repeated psycho-behavioral measures over the two weeks prior, and four weeks following influenza vaccination. IgG responses to vaccination were measured via antigen microarray and seroprotection via hemagglutination inhibition assays at 4 and 16weeks post-vaccination. High pre-vaccination seroprotection levels were observed for H3N2 and B viral strains. Positive mood on the day of vaccination was a significant predictor of H1N1 seroprotection at 16weeks post-vaccination and IgG responses to vaccination at 4 and 16weeks post-vaccination, controlling for age and gender. Positive mood across the 6-week observation period was also significantly associated with post-vaccination H1N1 seroprotection and IgG responses to vaccination at 16weeks post-vaccination, but in regression models the proportion of variance explained was lower than for positive mood on the day of vaccination alone. No other factors were found to significantly predict antibody responses to vaccination. Greater positive mood in older adults, particularly on the day of vaccination, is associated with enhanced responses to vaccination.

Background: Previous research has shown that psychological factors, such as stress and social support, are associated with greater susceptibility to viral respiratory illnesses and more severe symptoms. During the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a well-documented deterioration in psychological well-being and increased social isolation. This raises questions as to whether those experiencing psychological adversity during the pandemic are more at risk of contracting and/or experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. Purpose: To examine the relationship between psychological factors and the risk of COVID-19 self-reported infection and the symptomatic experience of SARS-CoV-2 (indicated by the number and severity of symptoms). Methods: As part of a longitudinal prospective observational cohort study, 1,087 adults completed validated measures of psychological well-being during April 2020 and self-reported incidence of COVID-19 infection and symptom experience across the pandemic through to December 2020. Regression models were used to explore these relationships controlling for demographic and occupational factors. Results: Greater psychological distress during the early phase of the pandemic was significantly associated with subsequent self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the experience of a greater number and more severe symptoms. Conclusions: COVID-19 infection and symptoms may be more common among those experiencing elevated psychological distress. Further research to elucidate the mechanisms underlying these associations is needed.

The provision of choice within interventions has been associated with increased motivation, engagement and interest, as well as improved clinical outcomes. Existing reviews are limited by their wide inclusion criteria or by not assessing behaviour change and mood outcomes. This review examines whether participant-driven choice-based interventions specifically are more likely to be enjoyed and accepted by participants compared to no-choice interventions, and whether this impacts on intervention outcomes in terms of behaviour change or mood. Forty-four randomised controlled trials were identified for inclusion. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for retention-related outcomes (drop-out, adherence and satisfaction), and aggregate behaviour change and mood outcomes. Choice-based interventions resulted in significantly less participant drop-out and increased adherence compared to interventions not offering choice. Results for the behaviour change and mood analyses were mixed. This meta-analytic review demonstrates that choice-based interventions may enhance participant retention and adherence, thus researchers and clinicians alike should consider the provision of choice when designing research and interventions. The evidence for the role of choice in behaviour change and mood is less convincing, and there is a need for more, higher quality research in this area.