Abstract
Objective To understand how individuals make trade-offs between features of lockdown interventions to control a pandemic across the four nations of the United Kingdom.
Design Survey that included a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). The survey design was informed using policy documents, social media analysis and with input from remote think aloud interviews with members of the public (n=23).
Setting Nation-wide survey across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Representative sample in terms of age and sex for each of the nations recruited using an online panel between 29th October and 12th December 2020.
Participants Individuals who are over 18 years old. A total of 4120 adults completed the survey (1112 in England, 848 in Northern Ireland, 1143 in Scotland and 1098 in Wales).
Primary outcome measure Adult’s preferences for, and trade-offs between, type of lockdown restrictions, length of lockdown, postponement of routine healthcare, excess deaths, impact on ability to buy things and unemployment.
Results In all four countries, one out of five respondents were willing to reduce excess deaths at all costs. The majority of adults are willing to accept higher excess deaths if this means lockdowns that are less strict, shorter and do not postpone routine healthcare. On average, respondents in England were willing to accept a higher increase in excess deaths to have less strict lockdown restrictions introduced compared to Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, respectively.
Conclusions The majority of the UK population is willing to accept the increase in excess deaths associated with introducing less strict lockdown restrictions. The acceptability of different restriction scenarios varies according to the features of the lockdown and across countries. Authorities can use information about trade-off preferences to inform the introduction of different lockdown restriction levels, and design compensation policies that maximise societal welfare.
Strengths and limitations of this study
This study offers empirical evidence that, unlike existing data from opinion polls and citizens’ panels, offers a clear understanding of the trade-offs between restrictions and impacts of lockdown on society.
Estimating preferences for each nation, and quantifying them in terms of a common denominator, allows a comparison that takes into account the heterogeneity of UK nations and can be used to inform the introduction of different levels of lockdown restrictions in each.
A limitation of our study is that we are not able to estimate the effect of on-going lockdowns in preferences. Furthermore, our results are not necessarily transferable to other nations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/11/e043477.abstract
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Health Economics Research Unit, the University of Aberdeen, and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. Award/Grant number is not applicable. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the article for publication.
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:
The College of Life Sciences and Medicine Ethical Review Board of the University of Aberdeen (Reference CERB/2020/6/1974) gave ethical approval for this work.
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
Data Availability
Anonymised cross-sectional data from the analysis can be made available by the corresponding author after the authors' review of reasonable requests. The published protocol can be found at: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/11.
