Ontologies aim to represent the world in terms of uniquely defined classes and their properties which are expressed as relationships with other classes. They are becoming widely used in science to improve clarity, searching, inference and the ability to link data from different sources. Ontological definitions are descriptions that represent the essential properties of classes of entities (which include objects, object attributes and processes) that distinguish them from other classes. Classes have unique IRIs (Internationalised Resource Identifiers) that can be used for searching; they also have labels which are words of phrases that people can use to identify the class in passages of text or tables. This article provides a brief guide to help with writing good ontological definitions. The standard format of such a definition of a class, A, is: ‘a B that C’ or its semantic equivalent, where A is the class being defined, B is a parent class and C describes a set of properties of A that distinguish it from other members of B.

The COM-B model of behaviour is widely used to identify what needs to change in order for a behaviour change intervention to be effective. It identifies three factors that need to be present for any behaviour to occur: capability, opportunity, and motivation. These factors interact over time so that behaviour can be seen as part of a dynamic system with positive and negative feedback loops. Motivation is a core part of the model, and the PRIME Theory of motivation provides a framework for understanding how reflective thought processes (Planning and Evaluation processes) and emotional and habitual processes (Motive and Impulse/inhibition processes) interact at every moment, leading to behaviour (Responses) at that moment.

Purpose: Increasing personal protective behaviours is critical for stopping the spread of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2: we need evidence to inform how to achieve this. We aimed to synthesise evidence on interventions to increase six personal protective behaviours (e.g. hand hygiene, face mask use) to limit the spread of respiratory viruses.Methods: We used best practice for rapid evidence reviews. We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus. Studies conducted in adults or children with active or passive comparators were included. We extracted data from published intervention descriptions on study design, intervention content, delivery mode, population, setting, mechanism(s) of action, acceptability, practicability, effectiveness, affordability, spill-over effects and equity impact. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane’s risk of bias tool. A narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.Results: We identified 39 studies conducted across 15 countries. Interventions targeted hand hygiene (n=30) and/or face mask use (n=12) and used two- or three-arm study designs with passive comparators. Interventions were typically delivered face-to-face and included a median of three behaviour change techniques. The quality of included studies was low. Interventions to increase hand hygiene (k=6) had a medium, positive effect (d=0.62, 95% CI=0.43-0.80, p<.001, I2=81.2%). Interventions targeting face mask use (k=4) had mixed results, with an imprecise pooled estimate (OR=4.14, 95% CI=1.24-13.79, p<.001, I2=89.67%). Between-study heterogeneity was high.Conclusions: We found low-quality evidence for positive effects of hand hygiene interventions, with unclear results for face mask use interventions. There was a lack of evidence for interventions targeting most behaviours of interest within this review.

Background: Face masks have been proposed as an important way of reducing transmission of viral respiratory infections, including SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To assess the likelihood that wearing face masks in community settings reduces transmission of viral respiratory infections. Methods: We conducted a rapid evidence review and used a Bayesian statistical approach to analysing experimental and observational studies conducted in community-dwelling children and adults that assessed the effectiveness of face mask wearing (vs. no face masks) on self-reported, laboratory-confirmed, or clinically diagnosed viral respiratory infections. Results: Eleven RCTs and 10 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The calculation of Bayes factors and cumulative posterior odds from the RCTs showed a moderate likelihood of a small effect of wearing surgical face masks in community settings in reducing self-reported influenza-like illness (ILI) (cumulative posterior odds = 3.61). However, the risk of reporting bias was high and evidence of reduction of clinically- or laboratory-confirmed infection was equivocal (cumulative posterior odds = 1.07 and 1.22, respectively). Observational studies yielded evidence of a negative association between face mask wearing and ILI but with high risk of confounding and reporting bias. Conclusions: Available evidence from RCTs is equivocal as to whether or not wearing face masks in community settings results in a reduction in clinically- or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections. No relevant studies concerned SARS-CoV-2 or were undertaken in community settings in the UK.