G James Rubin’s research while affiliated with King's College London and other places

Background The twelve item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) is a widely used measure of psychological wellbeing. Because there are seven different sets of response options across the twelve items, there is scope for transcription errors to occur when researchers assemble their study materials. The impact of such errors might be more important if they occur in the first set of response options than if they occur later in the questionnaire, once participants have become aware that options to the right of the GHQ-12 response sets always indicate worse wellbeing. Aims To test the impact of introducing errors into the first and eighth set of response options for the GHQ-12 that render those response sets partially illogical. Methods We used a double-blind randomised controlled trial, pre-registered with Open Science Framework (osf.io/syhwf). Participants were recruited by a market research company from their existing panel of respondents in Great Britain. Participants were randomly allocated to receive one of three versions of the GHQ-12: a correct version (n = 500), a version with a mistake in the first item (n = 502), or a mistake in the eighth item (n = 502). Mistakes replaced ‘better than usual’ (item one) or ‘more so than usual’ (item eight) with ‘not at all.’ Results We found no differences between the versions in terms of number of participants with possible poor psychological wellbeing (χ² = 0.32, df = 2, p = 0.85) or in mean GHQ-12 scores for the three groups (F(2, 1501) = 0.26, p = 0.77). Conclusions Small deviations from the standard GHQ-12 wording do not have a substantive impact on results.

Objectives To investigate worry about COVID-19 during the pandemic, and whether worry was associated with phase of the pandemic, COVID-19 death and incidence rates, Government interventions (including lockdown and advertising), age, being clinically at-risk, ethnicity, thinking that the Government had put the right measures in place, perceived risk of COVID-19 to self and the UK, and perceived severity of COVID-19. Design Secondary analysis of a series of cross-sectional surveys. Setting 73 online surveys conducted for the English Department of Health and Social Care between 28 January 2020 and 13 April 2022. Participants Participants were people aged 16 years and over living in the UK (approximately 2000 per wave). Primary outcome measures Our primary outcome was self-reported worry about COVID-19. Results Rates of being ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ worried changed over time. Worry increased as infection rates increased and fell during lockdowns, but the association became less obvious over time. Respondents aged 60 years and over were less likely to be worried after the launch of the vaccination campaign, while those who were clinically at-risk or from a minoritised ethnic community were more likely to be worried. Higher worry was associated with higher perceived risk, and higher perceived severity of COVID-19. There was no evidence for an association with agreeing that the Government was putting the right measures in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The launch of graphic Government advertising campaigns about COVID-19 had no noticeable effect on levels of public worry. Conclusions In future infectious disease outbreaks, spikes in worry may attenuate over time, although some sections of society may experience higher anxiety than others.

Vaccination was a key measure to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic, however adolescents were less likely than adults to accept the vaccine. Low vaccine uptake reduces the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns and threatens global public health. Understanding why adolescents are hesitant to accept new vaccines is therefore crucial to support the development of novel vaccine uptake interventions. Prior reviews have included far fewer citations, excluded qualitative data, studies after 2022 and have not mapped adolescent Covid-19 vaccine behaviour onto psychological models. This systematic review investigates psychological factors influencing attitudes and intentions toward and uptake of Covid-19 vaccines in adolescents aged 10 to 19 years globally. Next, we mapped results onto the COM-B framework to inform future interventions. Our search identified 25,354 citations, and included 77 in this review. The quality of studies was mixed, predominantly cross-sectional in design. According to our review, key influences on adolescent Covid-19 vaccine behaviour were: i) Reflective motivation (safety concerns, perceived susceptibility to/severity of Covid-19, perceived vaccine effectiveness, ii) Social opportunity (social norms, autonomy and prosocial attitudes), iii) Psychological capability (attitude and knowledge about vaccines). To improve vaccine uptake, interventions should help adolescents critically weigh vaccine pros and cons and consider external influences on their decisions. IMPLICATIONS AND CONTRIBUTION Our review provides new insights into psychological factors influencing adolescent Covid-19 vaccine behaviour, and maps factors to the COM-B model of behaviour change. To improve vaccine uptake, future vaccine interventions should support adolescents to think critically about the pros and cons of vaccines and consider external influences on their decisions.

Nocebo responding involves the experience of adverse health outcomes in response to contextual cues. These deleterious responses impact numerous features of mental and physical health but are characterized by pronounced heterogeneity. Suggestion is widely recognised as a contributing factor to nocebo responding but the moderating role of trait responsiveness to verbal suggestions (suggestibility) in nocebo responding remains poorly understood. We conducted a pre-registered meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration number CRD42023425605) to quantitatively synthesize available research on the relationship between suggestibility and nocebo responding. Four electronic databases were searched for original studies involving both the assessment of suggestibility and symptom reports in response to an inactive stimulus. Of 7,729 search results, 10 articles presenting 13 correlations between suggestibility and nocebo responding were analysed. A random-effects meta-analysis revealed a significant, albeit weak, positive correlation, r =0.21 [0.04, 0.37], between suggestibility and nocebo responses, such that more highly suggestible individuals displayed larger responses. Sensitivity and meta-regression analyses demonstrated that studies of higher methodological quality, including those that maintained experimenter blinding, exhibited stronger effect sizes. These results corroborate proposals that trait responsiveness to verbal suggestions confers greater response to nocebos and warrants renewed attention to the role of suggestibility in symptom induction and perception. For the purposes of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to any Accepted Author manuscript version arising from this submission.

Background The 2022-23 mpox epidemic is the first-time sustained community transmission had been reported in countries without epidemiological links to endemic areas. During that period, the outbreak almost exclusively affected sexual networks of gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) and people living with HIV. In efforts to control transmission, multiple public health measures were implemented, including vaccination, contact tracing and isolation. This study examines knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of mpox among a sample of GBMSM during the 2022-23 outbreak in the UK, including facilitators for and barriers to the uptake of public health measures. Methods Interviews were conducted with 44 GBMSM between May and December 2022. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Positive and negative comments pertaining to public health measures were collated in a modified version of a ‘table of changes’ to inform optimisations to public health messages and guidance. Results Most interviewees were well informed about mpox transmission mechanisms and were either willing to or currently adhering to public health measures, despite low perceptions of mpox severity. Measures that aligned with existing sexual health practices and norms were considered most acceptable. Connections to GBMSM networks and social media channels were found to increase exposure to sexual health information and norms influencing protective behaviours. Those excluded or marginalized from these networks found some measures challenging to perform or adhere to. Although social media was a key mode of information sharing, there were preferences for timely information from official sources to dispel exaggerated or misleading information. Conclusions There are differential needs, preferences, and experiences of GBMSM that limit the acceptability of some mitigation and prevention measures. Future public health interventions and campaigns should be co-designed in consultation with key groups and communities to ensure greater acceptability and credibility in different contexts and communities.

Background During the early “containment” phase of the COVID-19 response in England (January-March 2020), contact tracing was managed by Public Health England (PHE). Adherence to self-isolation during this phase and how people were making those decisions has not previously been determined. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of decisions around adherence to self-isolation during the first phase of the COVID-19 response in England. Methods A mixed-methods cross sectional study was conducted, including an online survey and qualitative interviews. The overall pattern of adherence was described as never leaving home, leaving home for lower-contact reasons and leaving home for higher-contact reasons. Fisher’s exact test was used to test associations between adherence and potentially predictive binary factors. Factors showing evidence of association overall were then considered in relation to the three aspects of adherence individually. Qualitative data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Of 250 respondents who were advised to self-isolate, 63% reported not leaving home at all during their isolation period, 20% reported leaving only for lower-contact activities (dog walking or exercise) and 16% reported leaving for higher-contact, and therefore higher-risk, reasons. Factors associated with adherence to never going out included: the belief that following isolation advice would save lives, experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, being advised to stay in their room, having help from outside and having regular contact by text message from PHE. Factors associated with non-adherence included being angry about the advice to isolate, being unable to get groceries delivered and concerns about losing touch with friends and family. Interviews highlighted that a sense of duty motivated people to adhere to isolation guidance and where people did leave their homes, these decisions were based on rational calculations of the risk of transmission – people would only leave their homes when they thought they were unlikely to come into contact with others. Conclusions Understanding adherence to isolation and associated reasoning during the early stages of the pandemic is essential to pandemic preparedness for future emerging infectious disease outbreaks. Individuals make complex decisions around adherence by calibrating transmission risks, therefore treating adherence as binary should be avoided.

In England (UK), at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic the public were required to reduce their physical contacts to slow the spread of COVID-19. We investigated the factors associated with children having: 1) close contact with family members from outside their household (‘non-adherent behaviour’); and 2) low well-being (Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale). We conducted an online cross-sectional survey, completed at any location of the participant’s choice between 8 and 11 June 2020 in parents (n = 2,010) who were aged eighteen years or over and had a school-aged child (4–18 years old). Parents reported that 15% (n = 309) of children had non-adherent contact and that 26% (n = 519) had low well-being. We used a series of binary logistic regressions to investigate associations between outcomes and child and parent characteristics. Children had higher odds of having non-household contact when they had special educational needs [adjusted odds ratio, 2.19 (95% CI, 1.47 to 3.27)], lower well-being [2.65 (95% CI, 2.03 to 3.46)], were vulnerable to COVID-19 [2.17 (95% CI, 1.45 to 3.25)], lived with someone who was over 70 years old [2.56 (95% CI, 1.55 to 4.24)] and their parent had low well-being [1.94 (95% CI, 1.45 to 2.58)]. Children had higher odds of lower well-being when they had special educational needs [4.13 (95% CI, 2.90 to 5.87)], were vulnerable to COVID-19 [3.06 (95% CI, 2.15 to 4.36)], lived with someone else who was vulnerable to COVID-19 [2.08 (95% CI, 1.64 to 2.64)], or lived with someone who was over 70 years old [2.41 (95% CI, 1.51 to 3.83)]. Many children came into contact with non-household family members, mainly for childcare. Factors relating to COVID-19, children’s well-being and education were also important. If school closures are needed in future, addressing these issues may help reduce contact.

Self-isolation is a public health measure used to prevent the spread of infection, and which can have an impact on the psychological wellbeing of those going through it. It is likely that self-isolation will be used to contain future outbreaks of infectious disease. We synthesised evidence on the impact of home self-isolation on psychological wellbeing of the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022378140). We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature (01 January 2020 to 13 December 2022). Our definition of wellbeing included adverse mental health outcomes and adaptive wellbeing. Studies that investigated isolation in managed facilities, children, and healthcare workers were excluded. We followed PRISMA and synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. We extracted data on the impact of self-isolation on wellbeing, and factors associated with and interventions targeting wellbeing during self-isolation. We included 36 studies (most were cross sectional, two were longitudinal cohort studies, three assessed interventions, and five were qualitative). The mode quality rating was ‘high-risk’. Depressive and anxiety symptoms were most investigated. Evidence for an impact of self-isolation on wellbeing was often inconsistent in quantitative studies, although qualitative studies consistently reported a negative impact on wellbeing. However, people with pre-existing mental and physical health needs consistently reported increased symptoms of mental ill health during self-isolation. Studies reported modifiable stressors that have been reported in previous infectious disease contexts, such as inadequate support, poor coping strategies, inadequate and conflicting information, and the importance of regular contact from trusted healthcare professionals. However, interventions targeting psychological wellbeing were rare and evaluative studies of these had high or very high risk of bias. When implementing self-isolation directives, public health officials should prioritise support for more vulnerable individuals who have pre-existing mental or physical health needs, lack support, or who are facing significant life stressors. Clinicians can play a key role in identifying and supporting those most at risk. Focus should be directed toward interventions that address loneliness, worries, and misinformation, whilst monitoring and identifying individuals in need of additional support.