Cargando…

Qualitative study of Ebola screening at ports of entry to the UK

INTRODUCTION: In response to the 2013–2016 West African outbreak of the Ebola virus disease (EVD), Public Health England introduced enhanced screening at major UK ports of entry. Our aim was to explore screeners’ and screened travellers’ perceptions of screening as part of an evaluation of the scree...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kesten, Joanna May, Audrey, Suzanne, Holding, Maya, Coope, Caroline, Young, Nick, Brown, Colin S, Harries, Jenny, Hickman, Matthew, Oliver, Isabel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6035509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29989094
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000788
_version_ 1783338069644017664
author Kesten, Joanna May
Audrey, Suzanne
Holding, Maya
Coope, Caroline
Young, Nick
Brown, Colin S
Harries, Jenny
Hickman, Matthew
Oliver, Isabel
author_facet Kesten, Joanna May
Audrey, Suzanne
Holding, Maya
Coope, Caroline
Young, Nick
Brown, Colin S
Harries, Jenny
Hickman, Matthew
Oliver, Isabel
author_sort Kesten, Joanna May
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: In response to the 2013–2016 West African outbreak of the Ebola virus disease (EVD), Public Health England introduced enhanced screening at major UK ports of entry. Our aim was to explore screeners’ and screened travellers’ perceptions of screening as part of an evaluation of the screening programme. METHODS: We undertook qualitative focus groups and semistructured interviews with screeners and travellers who had returned from affected countries before and after the introduction of screening in England. The study was conducted in two airports: one international rail terminal and one military airport. Research topic guides explored perceptions of the purpose and implementation of the process, potential improvements and reactions to screening. The data were analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: Twenty-four screeners participated in 4 focus groups (one for each port of entry) and 23 travellers participated in interviews. Three themes are presented: ‘Context’, ‘Screeners’ experience of the programme’ and ‘Screening purpose and experiences’. The programme was implemented rapidly, refined over time and adapted to individual ports. Screeners reported diverse experiences of screening including negative impacts on their normal roles, difficult interactions with passengers and pressure to identify positive EVD cases. Screening was considered unlikely to identify individuals with symptoms of EVD, and some participants suggested it was driven by political concerns rather than empirical evidence. The screening process was valued for its provision of information and reassurance. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study found that the UK EVD screening process was perceived to be acceptable to assess individual risk and provide information and advice to travellers. Future programmes should have clear objectives and streamlined processes to minimise disruption, tailored to the nature of the threat and developed with the needs of humanitarian workers as well as general travellers in mind.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6035509
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60355092018-07-09 Qualitative study of Ebola screening at ports of entry to the UK Kesten, Joanna May Audrey, Suzanne Holding, Maya Coope, Caroline Young, Nick Brown, Colin S Harries, Jenny Hickman, Matthew Oliver, Isabel BMJ Glob Health Research INTRODUCTION: In response to the 2013–2016 West African outbreak of the Ebola virus disease (EVD), Public Health England introduced enhanced screening at major UK ports of entry. Our aim was to explore screeners’ and screened travellers’ perceptions of screening as part of an evaluation of the screening programme. METHODS: We undertook qualitative focus groups and semistructured interviews with screeners and travellers who had returned from affected countries before and after the introduction of screening in England. The study was conducted in two airports: one international rail terminal and one military airport. Research topic guides explored perceptions of the purpose and implementation of the process, potential improvements and reactions to screening. The data were analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: Twenty-four screeners participated in 4 focus groups (one for each port of entry) and 23 travellers participated in interviews. Three themes are presented: ‘Context’, ‘Screeners’ experience of the programme’ and ‘Screening purpose and experiences’. The programme was implemented rapidly, refined over time and adapted to individual ports. Screeners reported diverse experiences of screening including negative impacts on their normal roles, difficult interactions with passengers and pressure to identify positive EVD cases. Screening was considered unlikely to identify individuals with symptoms of EVD, and some participants suggested it was driven by political concerns rather than empirical evidence. The screening process was valued for its provision of information and reassurance. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study found that the UK EVD screening process was perceived to be acceptable to assess individual risk and provide information and advice to travellers. Future programmes should have clear objectives and streamlined processes to minimise disruption, tailored to the nature of the threat and developed with the needs of humanitarian workers as well as general travellers in mind. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6035509/ /pubmed/29989094 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000788 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Research
Kesten, Joanna May
Audrey, Suzanne
Holding, Maya
Coope, Caroline
Young, Nick
Brown, Colin S
Harries, Jenny
Hickman, Matthew
Oliver, Isabel
Qualitative study of Ebola screening at ports of entry to the UK
title Qualitative study of Ebola screening at ports of entry to the UK
title_full Qualitative study of Ebola screening at ports of entry to the UK
title_fullStr Qualitative study of Ebola screening at ports of entry to the UK
title_full_unstemmed Qualitative study of Ebola screening at ports of entry to the UK
title_short Qualitative study of Ebola screening at ports of entry to the UK
title_sort qualitative study of ebola screening at ports of entry to the uk
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6035509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29989094
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000788
work_keys_str_mv AT kestenjoannamay qualitativestudyofebolascreeningatportsofentrytotheuk
AT audreysuzanne qualitativestudyofebolascreeningatportsofentrytotheuk
AT holdingmaya qualitativestudyofebolascreeningatportsofentrytotheuk
AT coopecaroline qualitativestudyofebolascreeningatportsofentrytotheuk
AT youngnick qualitativestudyofebolascreeningatportsofentrytotheuk
AT browncolins qualitativestudyofebolascreeningatportsofentrytotheuk
AT harriesjenny qualitativestudyofebolascreeningatportsofentrytotheuk
AT hickmanmatthew qualitativestudyofebolascreeningatportsofentrytotheuk
AT oliverisabel qualitativestudyofebolascreeningatportsofentrytotheuk