Meals on Wheels (MoWs), a service offered by local authorities in England, deliver meals to older, housebound and/or vulnerable adults, who might otherwise not be able to acquire and prepare their own meals. Research suggests that MoWs provide benefits beyond nutrition. Little is known about the actual interactions between service providers and clients, particularly during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The aim of this small‐scale, formative study was to explore MoWs service providers’ experiences and their perceptions around the benefits and challenges faced by the service, and understand how these experiences changed during the first UK national lockdown. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted in September 2020 with 18 service providers of MoWs (drivers who deliver the meals, service coordinators and managers) in two local authorities in England, and analysed thematically. Participants indicated that benefits of the service encompassed those to clients (e.g. welfare checks, encouraging independence and identifying and addressing isolation and loneliness), employees (e.g. sense of pride, rewarding relationships with clients) and the wider community (e.g. reducing pressures on families), and described MoWs as the ‘fourth emergency service’ (e.g. being the first responders to emergency situations). Participants identified several challenges faced by the MoWs service, including organisational challenges (e.g. funding cuts and closures, lack of appropriate publicity to raise awareness of the service) and restrictions on time spent with clients. The pandemic and lockdown resulted in increased demand on resources, concerns about client and staff wellbeing and uncertainty about how the service will cope if lockdowns continue. These findings provide important insights regarding the wide benefits of MoWs and the challenges the service faces, which can be used as the formative research base to guide future interventions and policies to protect vulnerable adults, not only during the COVID‐19 pandemic, but beyond.

Meals on Wheels (MoWs) is a social care service providing daily meals and social contact to adults who need support to live in the community. Considering the rising number of adults who need help with shopping for food and preparing meals in England, MoWs could be essential for these individuals; yet little is known about the experiences of MoWs service users and people who refer them to MoWs (“referrers”), with the service. The aim of this study was to explore different dimensions of the MoWs service from the perspectives of MoWs service users and referrers. Semistructured interviews were conducted in May–July 2022 with seven service users and 21 referrers, recruited from four MoWs providers across England, and analysed thematically. Participants indicated that benefits of the service encompassed the daily provision of a hot, nutritious meal, an informal welfare check, the service’s efficiency and reliability in promoting independent living and reducing pressures on families and carers, and the daily friendly interactions in reducing social isolation. The pandemic was not perceived to have affected participants’ experiences with MoWs but longer interactions between drivers who deliver the meals and service users would be welcomed to reduce isolation further. Despite the cost-of-living crisis and an increase in MoWs prices, participants perceived that MoWs are value-for-money due to the social care benefits derived from the service. The wide range of benefits exerted by MoWs suggests that the service should be recognised as a crucial preventative resource in maintaining the wellbeing and independence of adults with care and support needs and suggests that MoWs forms an essential part of the care package that people with care and support needs receive in England.

Background Daily testing using a rapid Lateral Flow Device (LFD) has been suggested as an alternative to self-isolation. A randomised trial comparing daily contact testing (DCT) in schools with self-isolation found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission within school was comparable and low in both groups. However, if this approach is to be adopted widely, it is critical that we understand the perspective of those who will be delivering and receiving DCT. The aim of this qualitative process study embedded in the randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to improve understanding of a range of behavioural factors that could influence implementation. Methods Interviews were conducted with 63 participants, including staff, students, and parents of students who had been identified as being in close contact with someone with COVID-19. The topic guide explored perceptions of daily testing, understanding of positive and negative test results, and adherence to guidance. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Results Results were organised under three main headings: (1) factors influencing daily testing (2) interpretation of test results (3) behaviour during testing period. Participants recognized that daily testing may allow students to remain in school, which was viewed as necessary for both education and social needs. Whilst some felt safer as a result of daily testing, others raised concerns about safety. Participants did not always understand how to interpret and respond to test results, and although participants reported high levels of adherence to the guidance, improved communications were desired. Conclusion Daily testing may be a feasible and acceptable alternative to self-isolation among close contacts of people who test positive. However, improved communications are needed to ensure that all students and parents have a good understanding of the rationale for testing, what test results mean, how test results should be acted on, and how likely students are to test positive following close contact. Support is needed for students and parents of students who have to self-isolate and for those who have concerns about the safety of daily testing.

The rapid transmission of COVID-19 in school communities has been a major concern. To ensure that mitigation systems were in place and support was available, a digital intervention to encourage and facilitate infection-control behaviours was rapidly adapted and optimised for implementation as a whole-school intervention. Using the person-based approach, ‘Germ Defence’ was iteratively adapted, guided by relevant literature, co-production with Patient and Public Involvement representatives, and think-aloud interviews with forty-five school students, staff, and parents. Suggested infection-control behaviours deemed feasible and acceptable by the majority of participants included handwashing/hand-sanitising and wearing a face covering in certain contexts, such as crowded public spaces. Promoting a sense of collective responsibility was reported to increase motivation for the adoption of these behaviours. However, acceptability and willingness to implement recommended behaviours seemed to be influenced by participants’ perceptions of risk. Barriers to the implementation of recommended behaviours in school and at home primarily related to childcare needs and physical space. We conclude that it was possible to rapidly adapt Germ Defence to provide an acceptable resource to help mitigate against infection transmission within and from school settings. Adapted content was considered acceptable, persuasive, and accessible.

INTRODUCTION: National suicide prevention strategies and action plans have, historically, been written without input from consumers/current users of mental health services. People who could arguably be seen as experts in this area are rarely asked for their knowledge regarding the efficacy of suicide prevention and intervention efforts. The aims of this study were to gain further insight into the effectiveness of suicide prevention intervention in Aotearoa New Zealand by asking service users “What works?” and to promote lived experience as a valid form of evidence. This article focuses on the importance of a holistic model of health and wellbeing and highlights the role played by social workers, both currently and in the future, regarding suicide prevention and intervention efforts.METHODS: Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals with lived experience of suicidal ideation and/or attempt.FINDINGS: Using thematic analysis, a variety of interventions were identified which participants found effective, including exercise, addressing physical health needs, practising mindfulness, use of medications and spirituality. These interventions, and others, are presented as themes within a framework of people, body, mind and spirit.CONCLUSIONS: It is important to view health holistically, and social workers can make an important contribution towards wellbeing through the provision of psychosocial interventions. Also, it is crucial to involve individuals with lived experience within research that informs policy and practice, and within collaborative treatment decisions.

Background Daily testing using a rapid Lateral Flow Device (LFD) has been suggested as an alternative to self-isolation. A randomised trial comparing daily contact testing (DCT) in schools with self-isolation found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission within school was comparable and low in both groups. However, if this approach is to be adopted widely, it is critical that we understand the perspective of those who will be delivering and receiving DCT. The aim of this qualitative process study embedded in the randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to improve understanding of a range of behavioural factors that could influence implementation. Methods Interviews were conducted with 63 participants, including staff, students, and parents of students who had been identified as being in close contact with someone with COVID-19. The topic guide explored perceptions of daily testing, understanding of positive and negative test results, and adherence to guidance. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Results Results were organised under three main headings: (1) factors influencing daily testing (2) interpretation of test results (3) behaviour during testing period. Participants recognized that daily testing may allow students to remain in school, which was viewed as necessary for both education and social needs. Whilst some felt safer as a result of daily testing, others raised concerns about safety. Participants did not always understand how to interpret and respond to test results, and although participants reported high levels of adherence to the guidance, improved communications were desired. Conclusion Daily testing may be a feasible and acceptable alternative to self-isolation among close contacts of people who test positive. However, improved communications are needed to ensure that all students and parents have a good understanding of the rationale for testing, what test results mean, how test results should be acted on, and how likely students are to test positive following close contact. Support is needed for students and parents of students who have to self-isolate and for those who have concerns about the safety of daily testing.

The rapid transmission of COVID-19 in school communities has been a major concern. To ensure that mitigation systems were in place and support was available, a digital intervention to encourage and facilitate infection control behaviours was rapidly adapted and optimised for implementation as a whole school intervention. Using the person-based approach, ‘Germ Defence’ was iteratively adapted, guided by relevant literature, co-production with Patient and Public Involvement representatives, and think aloud interviews with forty-five school students, staff, and parents. Suggested infection control behaviours deemed feasible and acceptable by the majority of participants included handwashing/hand-sanitising and wearing a face covering in certain contexts such as crowded public spaces. Promoting a sense of collective responsibility was reported to increase motivation for the adoption of these behaviours. However, acceptability and willingness to implement recommended behaviours seemed to be influenced by participants’ perceptions of risk. Barriers to the implementation of recommended behaviours in school and at home primarily related to childcare needs and physical space. We conclude that it was possible to rapidly adapt Germ Defence to provide an acceptable resource to help mitigate against infection transmission within and from school settings. Adapted content was considered acceptable, persuasive, and accessible.

No abstract