Public health information on COVID-19 for international travellers: lessons learned from a mixed-method evaluation

  1. T. Zhang
  2. C. Robin
  3. S. Cai
  4. C. Sawyer
  5. W. Rice
  6. L.E. Smith
  7. R. Amlôt
  8. G.J. Rubin
  9. R. Reynolds
  10. L. Yardley
  11. M. Hickman
  12. I. Oliver
  13. H. Lambert

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.01.028
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.22.20195628: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    However, screening measures generate other difficulties such as how to accurately identify targeted passengers and how to avoid social stigmatisation.[5, 14] This study has a number of limitations. In our qualitative work, interviewees were recruited based on survey participants’ willingness to consent to follow-up interviews rather than from a purposive sample. It is possible that such participants may hold stronger views than those who refuse, or may come from particular groups such as retired people. The interviewees’ accounts may therefore not accurately represent the views of all passengers who completed the survey. However, the demographic characteristics of interviewees indicated a relatively comprehensive coverage of both British residents and other nationalities coming to the UK for a variety of purposes, so the sample composition seemed reasonable. Given the time that elapsed between survey completion and interview as well as influences from the rapid changes in both pandemic and UK policies, interviewees’ impressions on the presence at the airport and their perceptions and views might have changed in the interim; all interviews were completed within 7 weeks from passengers’ arrive date to minimise these effects. Finally, both study size and early opportunities to use our findings to inform the content and delivery of official public health guidance were limited by difficulties in gaining airside access at airports and obtaining cooperation from airlines, so that by...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.22.20195628 on medRxiv