A qualitative process evaluation of a nasal spray intervention to prevent respiratory tract infections

Nasal sprays could be used to prevent and manage respiratory tract infections (RTIs). As part of a randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN17936080), participants received one of two nasal sprays (gel-based vs. saline) and a digital intervention. The digital intervention used behaviour change theories to encourage nasal spray use to reduce the severity and occurrences of RTIs. We explored participants' experiences of the digital intervention and nasal spray. We interviewed 31 participants (aged 19-80), sampled from the two nasal spray intervention trial arms across 3 winter seasons (including at the height of COVID-19). We analysed the interviews using thematic analysis and found two themes regarding facilitators and barriers to nasal spray use. The facilitators of nasal spray use revolved around belief in nasal spray efficacy for infection, belief the nasal spray is safe, motivation to avoid infection, sense of control over infection, and how the nasal spray is integrated into lifestyle. Barriers to nasal spray use included the belief the nasal spray is ineffective, belief the nasal spray is unnecessary, and usage difficulties. Overall, the results highlight the role of beliefs, lifestyle integration, and usage difficulties in nasal spray adherence, with implications for future digital interventions, such as addressing concerns about the nasal spray being perceived as medication.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2025-04-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321314
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.17

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A qualitative process evaluation of a nasal spray intervention to prevent respiratory tract infections

Kate Greenwell, Lucy Yardley, Adam W A Geraghty, Amelia Dennis et al.
1 citations
PLoS ONE
Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
2.17
article

A qualitative process evaluation of a nasal spray intervention to prevent respiratory tract infections

Kate Greenwell, Lucy Yardley, Adam W A Geraghty, Amelia Dennis, Paul Little, S Holt, Sascha Miller, Judith Joseph, Jane Vennik, Katherine Bradbury
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Nasal sprays could be used to prevent and manage respiratory tract infections (RTIs). As part of a randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN17936080), participants received one of two nasal sprays (gel-based vs. saline) and a digital intervention. The digital intervention used behaviour change theories to encourage nasal spray use to reduce the severity and occurrences of RTIs. We explored participants' experiences of the digital intervention and nasal spray. We interviewed 31 participants (aged 19-80), sampled from the two nasal spray intervention trial arms across 3 winter seasons (including at the height of COVID-19). We analysed the interviews using thematic analysis and found two themes regarding facilitators and barriers to nasal spray use. The facilitators of nasal spray use revolved around belief in nasal spray efficacy for infection, belief the nasal spray is safe, motivation to avoid infection, sense of control over infection, and how the nasal spray is integrated into lifestyle. Barriers to nasal spray use included the belief the nasal spray is ineffective, belief the nasal spray is unnecessary, and usage difficulties. Overall, the results highlight the role of beliefs, lifestyle integration, and usage difficulties in nasal spray adherence, with implications for future digital interventions, such as addressing concerns about the nasal spray being perceived as medication.

PLoS ONEVol. 20(4)
NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre (GB), University of Southampton (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Programme Grants for Applied Research
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
2.17
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.