ABSTRACT
Introduction In 2020, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) established a large-scale testing programme to rapidly identify individuals in England who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and had COVID-19. This comprised part of the UK government’s COVID-19 response strategy, to protect those at risk of severe COVID-19 disease and death and to reduce the burden on the health system. To assess the success of this approach, UKHSA commissioned an independent evaluation of the activities delivered by the NHS testing programme in England. The primary purpose of this evaluation is to capture key learnings from the rollout of testing to different target populations via various testing services between October 2020 and March 2022 and to use these insights to formulate recommendations for future pandemic preparedness strategy.
Methods and analysis The proposed study involves a stepwise mixed-methods approach, aligned with established methods for the evaluation of complex interventions in health, with retrospective and prospective components. A bottom-up approach will be taken, focusing on each of nine population-specific service settings. We will use a Theory of Change to understand the causal pathways and intended and unintended outcomes of each service, also exploring the effect of context on each individual service setting’s intended outcomes. Subsequently, the insights gained will be synthesised to identify process and outcome indicators to evaluate how the combined aims of the testing programme were achieved. A forward-looking, prospective component of this work will aim to inform testing strategy in preparation for future pandemics, through a participatory modelling simulation and policy analysis exercise.
Disclaimer This is a provisional draft protocol that represents research in progress. This research was commissioned and funded by UKHSA, to be performed between August 2022 and March 2023. The scope and depth of testing services and channels covered by this research were pre-agreed with UKHSA and are limited to the availability and provision of data available at the time this protocol was written.
Ethics and dissemination Findings arising from this evaluation will be used to inform lessons learnt and recommendations for UKHSA on appropriate pandemic preparedness testing programme designs; findings will also be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at academic conferences.
Strengths and limitations of the study
Strengths of this mixed-methods evaluation protocol include the use of theory-based, complex evaluation approaches and an iterative and participatory approach with the stakeholder (UKHSA) to the evaluation process and prospective modelling.
Given the scale and complexity of the COVID-19 testing response in England, there is a scarcity of previous relevant research into this, either in England or appropriate international comparators, warranting the mixed-methods evaluation approach we are adopting.
This is the first national-scale evaluation of the testing response to COVID-19 in England to incorporate most service settings, a programme which formed an integral part of the UK pandemic response strategy. The approach proposed could be applied to the evaluation of pandemic responses in other contexts or to other types of interventions.
Whereas most complex interventions are accompanied by a prospective evaluation design initiated at the time of the intervention or earlier, this study predominantly comprises a retrospective evaluation and is therefore limited by the quality of existing research and the data available to the research team at the time of conducting the evaluation within the specified period allocated by UKHSA.
Competing Interest Statement
This work was funded by Secretary of State for Health and Social Care acting as part of the Crown through the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), reference number C80260/PRO5331. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: all authors had financial support from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) for the submitted work; EY LLP London has previously received payment for consultancy work and advisory on the NHS Test & Trace response from the UK Department of Health and Social Care, now known as the UK Health Security Agency, Prof. Melinda C Mills has served as consultancy for Independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) and the ongoing COVID-19 enquiry for the United Kingdom government to the UK government; there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Secretary of State for Health and Social Care acting as part of the Crown through the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), reference number C80260/PRO5331.
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:
This study protocol has been granted ethical approval by the UKHSA Research Ethics and Governance Group Ref NR0347. All relevant ethics guidelines have been followed. Should the research approach or methods change following this version, the UKHSA Research Ethics and Governance Group will be notified and the appropriate ethical guidelines followed.
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
↵** The EY-Oxford Health Analytics Consortium membership list is attached in appendix a
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
