13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Students’ Views towards Sars-Cov-2 Mass Asymptomatic Testing, Social Distancing and Self-Isolation in a University Setting during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

            Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power

              Sample sizes must be ascertained in qualitative studies like in quantitative studies but not by the same means. The prevailing concept for sample size in qualitative studies is "saturation." Saturation is closely tied to a specific methodology, and the term is inconsistently applied. We propose the concept "information power" to guide adequate sample size for qualitative studies. Information power indicates that the more information the sample holds, relevant for the actual study, the lower amount of participants is needed. We suggest that the size of a sample with sufficient information power depends on (a) the aim of the study, (b) sample specificity, (c) use of established theory, (d) quality of dialogue, and (e) analysis strategy. We present a model where these elements of information and their relevant dimensions are related to information power. Application of this model in the planning and during data collection of a qualitative study is discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                15 April 2021
                April 2021
                : 18
                : 8
                : 4182
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2HA, UK
                [2 ]NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK; joanne.morling@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                [3 ]School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK; holly.knight@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk (H.K.); ru.jia@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk (R.J.); kieran.ayling@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk (K.A.); kavita.vedhara@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk (K.V.)
                [4 ]University Executive Board, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; jessica.corner@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                [5 ]Biodiscovery Institute, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; chris.denning@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk (C.D.); jonathan.ball@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk (J.K.B.)
                [6 ]School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; paddy.tighe@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                [7 ]School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; kirsty.bolton@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                [8 ]School of Computer Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK; g.figueredo@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                [9 ]Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; david.morris@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk (D.E.M.); armando.mendez@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk (A.M.V.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: holly.blake@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk ; Tel.: +44-(0)-115-82-31049
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3080-2306
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6843-8250
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0802-8617
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4094-7680
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9813-0767
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8326-093X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1766-8800
                Article
                ijerph-18-04182
                10.3390/ijerph18084182
                8071290
                33920908
                e892bd9d-2a1d-426a-8823-02450be95244
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 March 2021
                : 08 April 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                covid-19,sars-cov-2,coronavirus,mass testing,social isolation,social distancing,mental health,students,focus groups,qualitative

                Comments

                Comment on this article