Objective: To examine risk perceptions and behavioural responses of the UK adult population during the early phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK. Design: A cross-sectional surveySetting: Conducted with a nationally representative sample of UK adults within 48 hours of the UK Government advising the public to stop non-essential contact with others and all unnecessary travel.Participants: 2,108 adults living in the UK aged 18 years and over. Data were collected between March 17 and 18 2020. Main outcome measures:Descriptive statistics for all survey questions, including the number of respondents and the weighted percentages. Logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic variation in: (1) adoption of social-distancing measures, (2) ability to work from home, and (3) willingness and (4) ability to self-isolate. ResultsOverall, 1,992 (94.2%) respondents reported taking at least one preventive measure:85.8% washed their hands with soap more frequently; 56.5% avoided crowded areas and 54.5% avoided social events. Adoption of social-distancing measures was higher in those aged over 70 compared to younger adults aged 18 to 34 years (aOR:1.9; 95% CI:1.1 to 3.4).Those with the lowest household income were six times less likely to be able to work from home (aOR:0.16; 95% CI:0.09 to 0.26) and three times less likely to be able to self-isolate (aOR:0.31; 95% CI:0.16 to 0.58). Ability to self-isolate was also lower in black and minority ethnic groups (aOR:0.47; 95% CI:0.27 to 0.82). Willingness to self-isolate was high across all respondents. ConclusionsThe ability to adopt and comply with certain NPIs is lower in the most economically disadvantaged in society. Governments must implement appropriate social and economic policies to mitigate this. By incorporating these differences in NPIs among socio-economic subpopulations into mathematical models of COVID-19 transmission dynamics, our modelling of epidemic outcomes and response to COVID-19 can be improved.

ObjectiveTo examine risk perceptions and behavioural responses of the UK adult population during the early phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK.DesignA cross-sectional survey.SettingConducted with a nationally representative sample of UK adults within 48 hours of the UK Government advising the public to stop non-essential contact with others and all unnecessary travel.Participants2108 adults living in the UK aged 18 years and over. Response rate was 84.3% (2108/2500). Data collected between 17 March and 18 March 2020.Main outcome measuresDescriptive statistics for all survey questions, including number of respondents and weighted percentages. Robust Poisson regression used to identify sociodemographic variation in: (1) adoption of social distancing measures, (2) ability to work from home, and (3) ability and (4) willingness to self-isolate.ResultsOverall, 1992 (94.2%) respondents reported at least one preventive measure: 85.8% washed their hands with soap more frequently; 56.5% avoided crowded areas and 54.5% avoided social events. Adoption of social distancing measures was higher in those aged over 70 years compared with younger adults aged 18–34 years (adjusted relative risk/aRR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.5). Those with lowest household income were three times less likely to be able to work from home (aRR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.45) and less likely to be able to self-isolate (aRR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96). Ability to self-isolate was also lower in black and minority ethnic groups (aRR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.0). Willingness to self-isolate was high across all respondents.ConclusionsAbility to adopt and comply with certain non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is lower in the most economically disadvantaged in society. Governments must implement appropriate social and economic policies to mitigate this. By incorporating these differences in NPIs among socioeconomic subpopulations into mathematical models of COVID-19 transmission dynamics, our modelling of epidemic outcomes and response to COVID-19 can be improved.

BackgroundCancer has long inspired fear, but the effect of fear is not well understood; it seems both to facilitate and to deter early diagnosis behaviours. To elucidate fear's behavioural effects, we systematically reviewed and synthesised qualitative literature to explore what people fear about cancer.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, AnthroSource, and Anthrobase for studies on cancer fear in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening and analysed 102 studies from 26 countries using thematic synthesis.ResultsFears of cancer emanated from a core view of cancer as a vicious, unpredictable, and indestructible enemy, evoking fears about its proximity, the (lack of) strategies to keep it at bay, the personal and social implications of succumbing, and fear of dying from cancer.ConclusionsThis view of cancer as ‘an enemy’ reprises the media's ‘war on cancer’ theme and may affect the acceptance of cancer early detection and prevention messages, since cancer's characteristics influenced whether ‘fight’ or ‘flight’ was considered appropriate.

Background: Cancer fear has been associated with higher and lower screening uptake across different studies, possibly because different aspects of cancer fear have different effects on intentions versus behavior. The present study examined associations of three aspects of cancer fear with intention and uptake of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer.Methods: A subsample of UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) Trial participants received a baseline questionnaire that included three cancer fear items from a standard measure asking if: (i) cancer was feared more than other diseases, (ii) cancer worry was experienced frequently, and (iii) thoughts about cancer caused discomfort. Screening intention was assessed by asking participants whether, if invited, they would accept an invitation for FS screening. Positive responders were randomized to be invited or not in a 1:2 ratio. The behavioral outcome was clin-

Background Cancer-related stigma attracts considerable research interest, but few studies have examined stigmatisation in the healthy population. Qualitative studies suggest that stigma can discourage people from attending cancer screening. We aimed to quantify the prevalence and socio-demographic patterning of cancer stigma in the general population and to explore its association with cancer screening attendance. Methods In 2016, 1916 adults aged 18–70 years took part in home-based interviews in England. Measures assessed demographic characteristics, self-reported screening uptake for cervical ( n = 681), breast ( n = 326) and colorectal cancer ( n = 371), and cancer stigma. Cancer stigma was measured with the validated Cancer Stigma Scale which assesses six subdomains ( Severity , Personal Responsibility, Awkwardness, Avoidance, Policy Opposition, and Financial Discrimination ), from which a mean score was calculated . Logistic regression analyses examined the association between cancer stigma and having been screened as recommended versus not. Results Levels of cancer stigma were low, but varied across the six subdomains. Items regarding the severity of a cancer diagnosis attracted the highest levels of agreement (30–51%), followed by statements about the acceptability of making financial decisions on the basis of a cancer diagnosis such as allowing banks to refuse a mortgage (16–31%) and policy opposition statements such as not having a responsibility to provide the best possible care for cancer patients (10–17%). A similar proportion anticipated feeling awkward around someone with cancer (10–17%). Only 8–11% agreed with personal responsibility statements, such as that a person with cancer is to blame for their condition, while 4–5% of adults anticipated avoiding someone with cancer. Stigma was significantly higher in men ( p < .05) and in those from ethnic minority backgrounds ( p < .001). Higher cancer stigma was associated with not being screened as recommended for all three screening programmes (cervical: adjusted OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.15–2.20; breast: adjusted OR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.17–3.32; colorectal: adjusted OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.06–2.38). Conclusions Cancer stigma is generally low, but some aspects of stigma are more prevalent than others. Stigma is more prevalent in certain population subgroups and is negatively associated with cancer screening uptake. These benchmark findings may help track and reduce cancer stigma over time. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5787-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.