Abstract
Background Social contact survey data forms a core component of modern epidemic models: however, there has been little assessment of the potential biases in such data.
Methods We conducted focus groups with university students who had (n=13) and had not (n=14) completed a social contact survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative findings were explored quantitatively by analysing participation data.
Results The opportunity to contribute to COVID-19 research, to be heard and feel useful were frequently reported motivators for participating in the contact survey. Reductions in survey engagement following lifting of COVID-19 restrictions may have occurred because the research was perceived to be less critical and/ or because the participants were busier and had more contacts. Having a high number of contacts to report, uncertainty around how to report each contact, and concerns around confidentiality were identified as factors leading to inaccurate reporting. Focus groups participants thought that financial incentives or provision of study results would encourage participation.
Conclusions Incentives could improve engagement with social contact surveys. Qualitative research can inform the format, timing, and wording of surveys to optimise completion and accuracy.
Competing Interest Statement
HC is a principal investigator on a grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to this research. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Funding Statement
The focus groups were funded by the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute. HC, EBP, SD, TS and RK would like to acknowledge support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol. HC is additionally funded through an NIHR Career Development Fellowship [CDF-2018-11-ST2-015], which also funds TS. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, or UKHSA. ATh is supported by the Wellcome Trust (217509/Z/19/Z) and UKRI through the JUNIPER consortium MR/V038613/1 and CoMMinS study MR/V028545/1. EBP, EN and AB are supported by UKRI through the JUNIPER consortium (Grant Number MR/V038613/1). EBP is further supported by MRC (Grant Number MC/PC/19067). RK is funded by the Wellcome GW4 Clinical Academic Training programme (203918). AT is supported by the Wellcome Trust (222770/Z/21/Z).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from the Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the University of Bristol (application reference number 116774). All participants of the focus groups and participants of CONQUEST were given information about the study before they gave informed consent.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵# Joint last authors
We have added the doi for the data held in the data repository which relates to this paper
Data Availability
Data are available at the University of Bristol data repository, data.bris, at https://doi.org/10.5523/bris.29p4r41hm0oz525k33jjvevrrd, along with the code that was used for the analyses.
