cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10563046
title: vForm-xSteels Internal Benchmark Experimental Dataset (UAveiro)

description: The vForm-xSteels benchmark aims to evaluate the current state-of-the-art practices of using heterogeneous specimens and DIC techniques to characterise the hardening and anisotropy behaviour of metals. This is done to produce well-calibrated material constitutive models for precise manufacturing simulation design purposes. Therefore, both the experimental and numerical stages required for the behavior characterization are analysed and the current practices in the framework of MT2.0 are assessed. All commercial and university-designed tools and equipment can be used.

The available dataset is from the experimental tests conducted for the vForm-xSteels benchmark. A known and simple specimen geometry (the heterogeneous dog-bone specimen) was used in a uniaxial tensile test at different material orientations (0, 45, and 90 degrees from the rolling directions). 

 

This project has received funding from the Research Fund for Coal and Steel under grant agreement No 888153.
DOI: 10.26093/cds/vizier.36660012
title: QSO-DLA and MW stars column densities

description: VizieR online Data Catalogue associated with article published in journal Astronomy and Astrophysics with title 'Dust depletion of metals from local to distant galaxies.I. Peculiar nucleosynthesis effects and grain growth in the ISM.' (bibcode: 2022A&A...666A..12K)
DOI: 10.18742/25018865
title: The impact of “freedom day” on COVID-19 health protective behaviour in England: An observational study of hand hygiene, face covering use and physical distancing in public spaces pre and post the relaxing of restrictions

description: Objectives: To study the prevalence of COVID-19 health protective behaviours before and after rules eased in England on the 19<sup>th</sup> July 2021.Design: Observational study pre (12<sup>th</sup>-18<sup>th</sup> July) and post (26<sup>th</sup> July-1<sup>st</sup> August) 19<sup>th</sup> July, and a cross-sectional online survey (26<sup>th</sup> to 27<sup>th</sup> July).Setting: Observations occurred in supermarkets (n = 10), train stations (n = 10), bus stops (n = 10), a coach station (n = 1) and a London Underground station (n = 1). The survey recruited a nationally representative sample.Participants: All adults entering the observed locations during a one-hour period (n = 3819 pre- and n = 2948 post-19<sup>th</sup> July). In the online survey, 1472 respondents reported having been shopping for groceries/visited a pharmacy and 566 reported having used public transport or having been in a taxi/minicab in the last week.Main outcome measures: We observed whether people wore a face covering, maintained distance from others and cleaned their hands. We investigated self-reports of wearing a face covering while in shops or using public transport.Results: In most locations observed, the proportion of people wearing face coverings, cleaning the hands and maintaining physical distance declined post 19th July. Pre 19<sup>th</sup> July, 70.2% (95% CI 68.7 to 71.7%) of people were observed to be wearing a face covering versus 55.8% (54.2 to 57.9%) post 19<sup>th</sup> July. Equivalent rates for physical distancing were 40.9% (39.0 to 42.8%) versus 29.5% (27.4 to 31.7%), and for hand hygiene were 4.4% (3.8 to 5.1%) versus 3.9% (3.2 to 4.6%). Self-reports of “always” wearing face coverings were broadly similar to observed rates.Conclusions: Adherence to protective behaviours was sub-optimal and declined during the relaxation of restrictions, despite appeals to exercise caution. Self-reports of “always” wearing a face covering in specific locations appear valid.
DOI: 10.18742/25018865.v1
title: The impact of “freedom day” on COVID-19 health protective behaviour in England: An observational study of hand hygiene, face covering use and physical distancing in public spaces pre and post the relaxing of restrictions

description: Objectives: To study the prevalence of COVID-19 health protective behaviours before and after rules eased in England on the 19<sup>th</sup> July 2021.Design: Observational study pre (12<sup>th</sup>-18<sup>th</sup> July) and post (26<sup>th</sup> July-1<sup>st</sup> August) 19<sup>th</sup> July, and a cross-sectional online survey (26<sup>th</sup> to 27<sup>th</sup> July).Setting: Observations occurred in supermarkets (n = 10), train stations (n = 10), bus stops (n = 10), a coach station (n = 1) and a London Underground station (n = 1). The survey recruited a nationally representative sample.Participants: All adults entering the observed locations during a one-hour period (n = 3819 pre- and n = 2948 post-19<sup>th</sup> July). In the online survey, 1472 respondents reported having been shopping for groceries/visited a pharmacy and 566 reported having used public transport or having been in a taxi/minicab in the last week.Main outcome measures: We observed whether people wore a face covering, maintained distance from others and cleaned their hands. We investigated self-reports of wearing a face covering while in shops or using public transport.Results: In most locations observed, the proportion of people wearing face coverings, cleaning the hands and maintaining physical distance declined post 19th July. Pre 19<sup>th</sup> July, 70.2% (95% CI 68.7 to 71.7%) of people were observed to be wearing a face covering versus 55.8% (54.2 to 57.9%) post 19<sup>th</sup> July. Equivalent rates for physical distancing were 40.9% (39.0 to 42.8%) versus 29.5% (27.4 to 31.7%), and for hand hygiene were 4.4% (3.8 to 5.1%) versus 3.9% (3.2 to 4.6%). Self-reports of “always” wearing face coverings were broadly similar to observed rates.Conclusions: Adherence to protective behaviours was sub-optimal and declined during the relaxation of restrictions, despite appeals to exercise caution. Self-reports of “always” wearing a face covering in specific locations appear valid.
DOI: 10.18742/25018979
title: Knowledge of Self-Isolation Rules in the UK for Those Who Have Symptoms of COVID-19: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey Study

description: Objectives: To investigate knowledge of self-isolation rules and factors associated with knowledge. Methods: Repeated cross-sectional online surveys (n ≈ 2000 UK adults) between 9 November 2020 and 16 February 2022 (78,573 responses from 51,881 participants). We computed a composite measure of knowledge of self-isolation rules and investigated associations between knowledge and survey wave, socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, UK nation, index of multiple deprivation), trust in government, and participants’ belief that they had received enough information about self-isolation. Results: In total, 87.9% (95% CI 87.7% to 88.1%, n = 67,288/76,562) of participants knew that if they had symptoms of COVID-19 they should ‘self-isolate’. However, only 62.8% (n = 48,058/76,562, 95% CI 62.4% to 63.1%) knew the main rules regarding what that meant. Younger people had less knowledge than older people, and men had less knowledge than women. Knowledge was lower in people living in England versus in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The pattern of association between knowledge and trust in government was unclear. Knowledge was lower in people living in a more deprived area and those who did not believe they had enough information about self-isolation. Knowledge was lower in December 2020 to January 2021, compared with before and after this period. Conclusions: Approximately 63% of UK adults between November 2020 and February 2022 appeared to know the main rules regarding self-isolation if symptomatic with COVID-19. Knowledge was lower in younger than older people, men than women, those living in England compared with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and those living in more deprived areas.
DOI: 10.18742/25018979.v1
title: Knowledge of Self-Isolation Rules in the UK for Those Who Have Symptoms of COVID-19: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey Study

description: Objectives: To investigate knowledge of self-isolation rules and factors associated with knowledge. Methods: Repeated cross-sectional online surveys (n ≈ 2000 UK adults) between 9 November 2020 and 16 February 2022 (78,573 responses from 51,881 participants). We computed a composite measure of knowledge of self-isolation rules and investigated associations between knowledge and survey wave, socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, UK nation, index of multiple deprivation), trust in government, and participants’ belief that they had received enough information about self-isolation. Results: In total, 87.9% (95% CI 87.7% to 88.1%, n = 67,288/76,562) of participants knew that if they had symptoms of COVID-19 they should ‘self-isolate’. However, only 62.8% (n = 48,058/76,562, 95% CI 62.4% to 63.1%) knew the main rules regarding what that meant. Younger people had less knowledge than older people, and men had less knowledge than women. Knowledge was lower in people living in England versus in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The pattern of association between knowledge and trust in government was unclear. Knowledge was lower in people living in a more deprived area and those who did not believe they had enough information about self-isolation. Knowledge was lower in December 2020 to January 2021, compared with before and after this period. Conclusions: Approximately 63% of UK adults between November 2020 and February 2022 appeared to know the main rules regarding self-isolation if symptomatic with COVID-19. Knowledge was lower in younger than older people, men than women, those living in England compared with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and those living in more deprived areas.
DOI: 10.18742/25019054
title: Factors associated with non-essential workplace attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK in early 2021: evidence from cross-sectional surveys

description: Objectives: Working from home where possible is important in reducing the spread of COVID-19. In early 2021, a quarter of people in England who believed they could work entirely from home reported attending their workplace. To inform interventions to reduce this, this study examined associated factors.Study design: Data from the ongoing COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses survey series of nationally representative samples of people in the UK aged 16+ years in January–February 2021 were used.Methods: The study sample was 1422 respondents who reported that they could work completely from home. The outcome measure was self-reported workplace attendance at least once during the preceding week. Factors of interest were analysed in three blocks: 1) sociodemographic variables, 2) variables relating to respondents’ circumstances and 3) psychological variables.Results: 26.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 24.5%–29.1%) of respondents reported having attended their workplace at least once in the preceding week. Sociodemographic variables and living circumstances significantly independently predicted non-essential workplace attendance: male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.33–2.58); dependent children in the household (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.17–2.32); financial hardship (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.08–1.21); lower socio-economic grade (C2DE; OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.19–2.53); working in sectors such as health or social care (OR = 4.18, 95% CI = 2.56–6.81), education and childcare (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.45–4.14) and key public service (OR = 3.78, 95% CI = 1.83–7.81) and having been vaccinated (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.33–3.24).Conclusions: Non-essential workplace attendance in the UK in early 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly independently associated with a range of sociodemographic variables and personal circumstances. Having been vaccinated, financial hardship, socio-economic grade C2DE, having a dependent child at home and working in certain key sectors were associated with higher likelihood of workplace attendance.
DOI: 10.18742/25019054.v1
title: Factors associated with non-essential workplace attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK in early 2021: evidence from cross-sectional surveys

description: Objectives: Working from home where possible is important in reducing the spread of COVID-19. In early 2021, a quarter of people in England who believed they could work entirely from home reported attending their workplace. To inform interventions to reduce this, this study examined associated factors.Study design: Data from the ongoing COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses survey series of nationally representative samples of people in the UK aged 16+ years in January–February 2021 were used.Methods: The study sample was 1422 respondents who reported that they could work completely from home. The outcome measure was self-reported workplace attendance at least once during the preceding week. Factors of interest were analysed in three blocks: 1) sociodemographic variables, 2) variables relating to respondents’ circumstances and 3) psychological variables.Results: 26.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 24.5%–29.1%) of respondents reported having attended their workplace at least once in the preceding week. Sociodemographic variables and living circumstances significantly independently predicted non-essential workplace attendance: male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.33–2.58); dependent children in the household (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.17–2.32); financial hardship (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.08–1.21); lower socio-economic grade (C2DE; OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.19–2.53); working in sectors such as health or social care (OR = 4.18, 95% CI = 2.56–6.81), education and childcare (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.45–4.14) and key public service (OR = 3.78, 95% CI = 1.83–7.81) and having been vaccinated (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.33–3.24).Conclusions: Non-essential workplace attendance in the UK in early 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly independently associated with a range of sociodemographic variables and personal circumstances. Having been vaccinated, financial hardship, socio-economic grade C2DE, having a dependent child at home and working in certain key sectors were associated with higher likelihood of workplace attendance.
DOI: 10.18742/25019057
title: How has the emergence of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern influenced worry, perceived risk and behaviour in the UK? A series of cross-sectional surveys

description: Objectives: To investigate changes in beliefs and behaviours following news of the Omicron variant and changes to guidance understanding of Omicron-related guidance, and factors associated with engaging with protective behaviours.Design: Series of cross-sectional surveys (1 November to 16 December 2021, five waves of data collection).Setting: Online.Participants: People living in England, aged 16 years or over (n=1622–1902 per wave).Primary and secondary outcome measures: Levels of worry and perceived risk, and engagement with key behaviours (out-of-home activities, risky social mixing, wearing a face covering and testing uptake).Results: Degree of worry and perceived risk of COVID-19 (to oneself and people in the UK) fluctuated over time, increasing slightly around the time of the announcement about Omicron (p&lt;0.001). Understanding of rules in England was varied, ranging between 10.3% and 91.9%, with people overestimating the stringency of the new rules. Rates of wearing a face covering and testing increased over time (p&lt;0.001). Meeting up with people from another household decreased around the time of the announcement of Omicron (29 November to 1 December), but then returned to previous levels (p=0.002). Associations with protective behaviours were investigated using regression analyses. There was no evidence for significant associations between out-of-home activity and worry or perceived risk (COVID-19 generally or Omicron-specific, p≥0.004; Bonferroni adjustment p&lt;0.002 applied). Engaging in highest risk social mixing and always wearing a face covering were associated with worry and perceived risk about COVID-19 (p≤0.001). Always wearing a face covering in shops was associated with having heard more about Omicron (p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: Almost 2 years into the COVID-19 outbreak, the emergence of a novel variant of concern only slightly influenced worry and perceived risk. The main protective behaviour (wearing a face covering) promoted by new guidance showed significant re-uptake, but other protective behaviours showed little or no change.
DOI: 10.18742/25019057.v1
title: How has the emergence of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern influenced worry, perceived risk and behaviour in the UK? A series of cross-sectional surveys

description: Objectives: To investigate changes in beliefs and behaviours following news of the Omicron variant and changes to guidance understanding of Omicron-related guidance, and factors associated with engaging with protective behaviours.Design: Series of cross-sectional surveys (1 November to 16 December 2021, five waves of data collection).Setting: Online.Participants: People living in England, aged 16 years or over (n=1622–1902 per wave).Primary and secondary outcome measures: Levels of worry and perceived risk, and engagement with key behaviours (out-of-home activities, risky social mixing, wearing a face covering and testing uptake).Results: Degree of worry and perceived risk of COVID-19 (to oneself and people in the UK) fluctuated over time, increasing slightly around the time of the announcement about Omicron (p&lt;0.001). Understanding of rules in England was varied, ranging between 10.3% and 91.9%, with people overestimating the stringency of the new rules. Rates of wearing a face covering and testing increased over time (p&lt;0.001). Meeting up with people from another household decreased around the time of the announcement of Omicron (29 November to 1 December), but then returned to previous levels (p=0.002). Associations with protective behaviours were investigated using regression analyses. There was no evidence for significant associations between out-of-home activity and worry or perceived risk (COVID-19 generally or Omicron-specific, p≥0.004; Bonferroni adjustment p&lt;0.002 applied). Engaging in highest risk social mixing and always wearing a face covering were associated with worry and perceived risk about COVID-19 (p≤0.001). Always wearing a face covering in shops was associated with having heard more about Omicron (p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: Almost 2 years into the COVID-19 outbreak, the emergence of a novel variant of concern only slightly influenced worry and perceived risk. The main protective behaviour (wearing a face covering) promoted by new guidance showed significant re-uptake, but other protective behaviours showed little or no change.
DOI: 10.18742/25019072
title: Do members of the public think they should use lateral flow tests (LFT) or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests when they have COVID-19-like symptoms? The COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses study

description: Objectives: This study aimed to investigate public use of lateral flow tests (LFT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests when experiencing key COVID-19 symptoms.Study design: In this study, data from two waves of a cross-sectional nationally representative online survey (data collected 1 and 2 June, and 14 and 15 June 2021; n = 3665 adults aged ≥18 years living in England or Scotland) were used.Methods: We report data investigating which type of test, if any, the public think Government guidance asks people to use if they have COVID-19 symptoms. In people with key COVID-19 symptoms (high temperature / fever; new, continuous cough; loss of sense of smell; loss of taste), we also describe the uptake of testing, if any.Results: Ten percent of respondents thought Government guidance stated that they should take an LFT if symptomatic, whereas 18% of people thought that they should take a PCR test; 60% of people thought they should take both types of test (12% did not select either option). In people who were symptomatic, 32% reported taking a test to confirm whether they had COVID-19. Of these, 53% reported taking a PCR test and 44% reported taking an LFT.Conclusions: Despite Government guidance stating that anyone with key COVID-19 symptoms should complete a PCR test, a significant percentage of the population use LFT tests when symptomatic. Communications should emphasise the superiority of, and need for, PCR tests in people with symptoms.
DOI: 10.18742/25019072.v1
title: Do members of the public think they should use lateral flow tests (LFT) or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests when they have COVID-19-like symptoms? The COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses study

description: Objectives: This study aimed to investigate public use of lateral flow tests (LFT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests when experiencing key COVID-19 symptoms.Study design: In this study, data from two waves of a cross-sectional nationally representative online survey (data collected 1 and 2 June, and 14 and 15 June 2021; n = 3665 adults aged ≥18 years living in England or Scotland) were used.Methods: We report data investigating which type of test, if any, the public think Government guidance asks people to use if they have COVID-19 symptoms. In people with key COVID-19 symptoms (high temperature / fever; new, continuous cough; loss of sense of smell; loss of taste), we also describe the uptake of testing, if any.Results: Ten percent of respondents thought Government guidance stated that they should take an LFT if symptomatic, whereas 18% of people thought that they should take a PCR test; 60% of people thought they should take both types of test (12% did not select either option). In people who were symptomatic, 32% reported taking a test to confirm whether they had COVID-19. Of these, 53% reported taking a PCR test and 44% reported taking an LFT.Conclusions: Despite Government guidance stating that anyone with key COVID-19 symptoms should complete a PCR test, a significant percentage of the population use LFT tests when symptomatic. Communications should emphasise the superiority of, and need for, PCR tests in people with symptoms.
DOI: 10.18742/25019090
title: Patterns of social mixing in England changed in line with restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic (September 2020 to April 2022)

description: Social mixing contributes to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We developed a composite measure for risky social mixing, investigating changes during the pandemic and factors associated with risky mixing. Forty-five waves of online cross-sectional surveys were used (n = 78,917 responses; 14 September 2020 to 13 April 2022). We investigated socio-demographic, contextual and psychological factors associated with engaging in highest risk social mixing in England at seven timepoints. Patterns of social mixing varied over time, broadly in line with changes in restrictions. Engaging in highest risk social mixing was associated with being younger, less worried about COVID-19, perceiving a lower risk of COVID-19, perceiving COVID-19 to be a less severe illness, thinking the risks of COVID-19 were being exaggerated, not agreeing that one’s personal behaviour had an impact on how COVID-19 spreads, and not agreeing that information from the UK Government about COVID-19 can be trusted. Our composite measure for risky social mixing varied in line with restrictions in place at the time of data collection, providing some validation of the measure. While messages targeting psychological factors may reduce higher risk social mixing, achieving a large change in risky social mixing in a short space of time may necessitate a reimposition of restrictions.