Dataset Information

A systematic review and realist synthesis on toilet paper hoarding: COVID or not COVID, that is the question.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with toilet paper hoarding and to assess which risk factors are associated with the risk of toilet paper hoarding.

Design

A systematic review and realist review were conducted.

Data sources

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO were searched (systematic review). PubMed, pre-prints and grey literature were also searched (realist review). The databases were searched from inception until October 2020.

Study selection

There were no restrictions on the study design.

Outcomes and measures

For the systematic review, toilet paper hoarding was the main outcome, and pathological use of toilet paper was the secondary outcome. For the realist review, the context-mechanisms-outcome (CMO) scheme included the COVID-19 pandemic (context), four proposed mechanisms, and one outcome (toilet paper hoarding). The four potential mechanisms were (1) gastrointestinal mechanisms of COVID-19 (e.g. diarrhoea), (2) social cognitive biases, (3) stress-related factors (mental illnesses, personality traits) and (4) cultural aspects (e.g. differences between countries).

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

All studies of human populations were considered (including general population studies and clinical studies of patients suffering from mental health problems).

Results

The systematic review identified 14 studies (eight studies for the main outcome, six studies for the secondary outcome). Three surveys identified the role of the COVID-19 threat in toilet paper hoarding in the general population. One study pointed to an association between a personality trait (conscientiousness) and toilet paper buying and stockpiling as well as an additional significant indirect effect of emotionality through the perceived threat of COVID-19 on toilet paper buying and stockpiling. Six case reports of pathological use of toilet paper were also identified, although none of them were associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The realist review suggested that of all the mechanisms, social cognitive biases and a bandwagon effect were potential contributors to toilet paper hoarding in the general population. The stressful situation (COVID-19 pandemic) and some personality traits (conscientiousness) were found to be associated with toilet paper hoarding. Cultural differences were also identified, with relatively substantial effects of toilet paper hoarding in several Asian regions (Australia, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a worldwide increase in toilet paper hoarding. Social media and social cognitive biases are major contributors and might explain some differences in toilet paper hoarding between countries. Other mental health-related factors, such as the stressful situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, fear of contagion, or particular personality traits (conscientiousness), are likely to be involved.

Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020182308.

SUBMITTER: Labad J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7849510 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review and realist synthesis on toilet paper hoarding: COVID or not COVID, that is the question.

Labad Javier J González-Rodríguez Alexandre A Cobo Jesus J Puntí Joaquim J Farré Josep Maria JM

PeerJ 20210129

<h4>Objective</h4>To explore whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with toilet paper hoarding and to assess which risk factors are associated with the risk of toilet paper hoarding.<h4>Design</h4>A systematic review and realist review were conducted.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO were searched (systematic review). PubMed, pre-prints and grey literature were also searched (realist review). The databases were searched from inceptio ...[more]

PMID: 33575133

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExperiential peers are increasingly involved in the development and delivery of interventions for individuals who are engaged in delinquent behavior. Experiential peer support, which is the provision of support to an individual engaged in delinquent behavior by someone who has previously also practiced such behavior, is one such application. Little is known, however, about its effects on desistance, or the mechanisms that explain these effects. On the basis of theoretical papers, program descriptions, and interviews with experts, we developed an initial program theory. We propose seven mechanisms that might play a role in the (potential) effects of support by experiential peers: (1) empathy and acceptance, (2) social learning, (3) social bonding, (4) social control, (5) narrative and identity formation, (6) hope and perspective, and (7) translation and connection. In addition, in this protocol paper, we describe the methods of a systematic realist literature review that will be conducted in order to investigate the evidence base for this program theory.MethodsThe study described in this protocol paper is a realist review, which is a suitable approach to study complex interventions and fits the explanatory purpose of the study. We outline the steps to be taken for the systematic realist review, including the selection and assessment of studies and the methods for synthesizing the findings.DiscussionInvestigating the effects and the underlying mechanisms of support by experiential peers for individuals with delinquent behavior is relevant because the forensic setting has some unique features, and the involvement of service users might create even more tension than in other settings due to stigma and perceived risks. The findings that will be reported in the realist review will contribute to the knowledge of the effects of support by experiential peers and will provide insight into which aspects remain to be studied. It might also provide formal care institutions with guidance on whether to involve experiential peers in the delivery of their services and the conditions under which these interventions are likely to lead to positive results.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the benefit of using electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease and explore the mechanisms by which these impact patient self-efficacy and self-management.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, all evidence-based medicine, CINAHL, Embase and PsychINFO covering the period 2009 to 2018 for electronic, mobile or telehealth interventions. Quality was assessed according to rigour and relevance. Those studies providing a richer description ('thick') were synthesised using a realist matrix.Setting and participantsStudies of any design conducted in community-based primary care involving adults with one or more diagnosed chronic health condition and vulnerability due to demographic, geographic, economic and/or cultural characteristics.ResultsEighteen trials were identified targeting a range of chronic conditions and vulnerabilities. The data provided limited insight into the mechanisms underpinning these interventions, most of which sought to persuade vulnerable patients into believing they could self-manage their conditions through improved symptom monitoring, education and support and goal setting. Patients were relatively passive in the interaction, and the level of patient response attributed to their intrinsic level of motivation. Health literacy, which may be confounded with motivation, was only measured in one study, and eHealth literacy was not assessed.ConclusionsResearch incorporating these tools with vulnerable groups is not comprehensive. Apart from intrinsic motivation, health literacy may also influence the reaction of vulnerable groups to technology. Social persuasion was the main way interventions sought to achieve better self-management. Efforts to engage patients by healthcare providers were lower than expected. Use of social networks or other eHealth mechanisms to link patients and provide opportunities for vicarious experience could be further explored in relation to vulnerable groups. Future research could also assess health and eHealth literacy and differentiate the specific needs for vulnerable groups when implementing health technologies.

Project description:BackgroundWithout any pharmaceutical intervention and vaccination, the only way to combat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is to slow down the spread of the disease by adopting non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (PHIs). Patient isolation, lockdown, quarantine, social distancing, changes in health care provision, and mass screening are the most common non-pharmaceutical PHIs to cope with the epidemic. However, there is neither systematic evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the COVID-19 nor on how these interventions work in different contexts. Therefore, in this study we will address two main objectives: 1) to assess the effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19 using a systematic review and meta-analyses; 2) to explore why, how, and for whom these interventions work using a realist review.Materials and methodsThis review study has two main phases. In the first phase of this study, we will extract data from two main types of studies including quasi-experimental studies (such as quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs)) and observational studies (such as cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies), written in the English language. We will explore effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs targeted either suppression or mitigation strategies (or a combination of both) in controlling the COVID-19 epidemics in the community level. Effectiveness will be considered as the changes in mortality rate, incidence rate, basic reproduction number rate, morbidity rate, rates of hospitalization, rates of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and other health outcomes where possible. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses, if possible, using CMA software. In the second phase, we will conduct a realist review to find out how, why, for whom, and in what circumstances the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work. At the realist review, we will identify and explore Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations to provide a robust explanation on the effectiveness of the interventions in different contexts using Pawson's 5-step realist review template including: "clarify scope; search for evidence; appraise primary studies and extract data; synthesize evidence and draw conclusions; and disseminate, implement and evaluate". Although the steps are presented in a linear manner, in practice, we will follow them in iterative stages to fill any potential overlap.DiscussionThe findings of this research will provide a crucial insight into how and in which context the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with a realist review will allow us to draw a robust conclusion on the effects and the way in which the interventions work. Understanding the role of contextual factors in the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs and the mechanism of this process could enable policymakers to implement appropriate policies and manage the COVID-19 epidemics more efficiently.Systematic review registrationCRD42020186855.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Earlier work has described videoconferencing technologies, peripheral equipment, organizational models, human relations, purposes, goals and roles as versatile, multifaceted, and those used differently in different clinical practices. Knowledge about benefits and challenges connected to specific characteristics of services are lacking. A 2005 systematic review of published definitions of electronic health (eHealth) identified 51 unique definitions. In addition, the "10 E's of eHealth" was developed. In 2015, the question "What Is eHealth: Time for an Update?" was posed. OBJECTIVE:Considering videoconferencing as eHealth, the objective of the paper is twofold: to demonstrate and cluster (different) clinical videoconferencing practices and their situated implications and to suggest interpretive concepts that apply to all clusters and contribute to generative learning of eHealth by discussing the concepts as add-ons to existing descriptions of eHealth in the "10 E's of eHealth." METHODS:We performed a literature search via the National Center for Biotechnology Information, encompassing PubMed and PubMedCentral, for quality reviews and primary studies. We used the terms "videoconferencing" and "clinical practices." The selection process was based upon clearly defined criteria. We used an electronic form to extract data. The analysis was inspired by critical and realist review types, grounded theory, and qualitative meta-synthesis. RESULTS:The search returned 354 reviews and primary studies. This paper considered the primary studies, and 16 were included. We identified the following 4 broad clusters: videoconferencing as a controlled technological intervention within existing health care organizations for expert advice, controlled mixed interventions with experimental organizational arrangements, videoconferencing as an emerging technosocial service involving dialogue and empowerment of patients, and videoconferencing as a controlled intervention to improve administrative efficiency. The analysis across the clusters resulted in a proposal to add the following 4 D's to the existing 10 E's: (inter)-dependent, differentiated across services and along temporal lines, dynamic in terms of including novel elements for meeting incremental needs, and demanding in terms of making new challenges and dual results visible and needing fresh resources to meet those challenges. For a normative discussion about what eHealth should be according to authors' conclusions, results suggested ethical, in that users interests should be respected, and not harmful in terms of increasing symptom burden. CONCLUSIONS:Services were enacted as dynamic, differentiated concerning content and considerations of quality and adaptive along temporal lines. They were made to work from an ongoing demand for fresh resources, making them interdependent. The 4 D's-Dynamic, Differentiated, Demanding, and (inter) Dependent-serve as pragmatic add-ons to the "10 E's of eHealth." Questions concerning outcome of specified balances between standardization and customization in clinical settings should be addressed in future research along with the emerging dual character of outcome: services being considered both "good" and "bad."

Project description:Social support is a well-recognised protective factor for children's mental health. Whilst many interventions exist that seek to mobilise social support to improve children's mental health, not much is known about how to best do this. We sought to generate knowledge about the ways in which social support can be mobilised to improve children's mental health. We conducted a systematic review, which followed the principles of a realist synthesis. The following databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, Child and Adolescent Studies, EconLit and SocINDEX. Studies were included if the age of participants was between 0 and 18 years and they evaluated or described programme theories of interventions that sought to improve children's mental health by mobilising social support. Relevance and quality of studies were assessed, and data were extracted and analysed narratively. Thirty-three articles were included. Studies varied substantially with regard to the detail in which they described the processes of mobilising social support and expected mechanisms to improve children's mental health. Those that provided this detail showed the following: Intervention components included explaining the benefits of social support and relationships to families and modelling friendly relationships to improve social skills. Pathways to improved outcomes reflected bi-directional and dynamic relationships between social support and mental health, and complex and long-term processes of establishing relationship qualities such as trust and reciprocity. Parents' ability to mobilise social support for themselves and on behalf of children was assumed to impact on their children's mental health, and (future) ability to mobilise social support. Although interventions were considered affordable, some required substantial human and financial resources from existing systems. Mobilising social support for vulnerable children can be a complex process that requires careful planning, and theory-informed evaluations can have an important role in increasing knowledge about how to best address social support and loneliness in children.

Project description:BackgroundPatients are increasingly being asked for feedback about their healthcare and treatment, including safety, despite little evidence to support this trend. This review identifies the strategies used to engage patients in safety during direct care, explores who is engaged and determines the mechanisms that impact effectiveness.MethodsA systematic review was performed of seven databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, Cochrane-Central, Embase, ISI Web of Science, Medline, PsycINFO) that included research published between 2010 and 2020 focused on patient engagement interventions to increase safety during direct care and reported using PRISMA. All research designs were eligible; two reviewers applied criteria independently to determine eligibility and quality. A narrative review and realist synthesis were conducted.ResultsTwenty-six papers reporting on twenty-seven patient engagement strategies were included and classified as consultation (9), involvement (7) and partnership (11). The definitions of 'patient engagement' varied, and we found limited details about participant characteristics or interactions between people utilizing strategies. Collaborative strategy development, a user-friendly design, proactive messaging and agency sponsorship were identified as mechanisms to improve engagement about safety at the point of direct care.ConclusionsAgency sponsorship of collaboration between staff and patients is essential in the development and implementation of strategies to keep patients safe during direct care. Insufficient details about participant characteristics and patient-provider interactions limit recommendations for practice change. More needs to be learned about how patients are engaged in discussions about safety, particularly minority groups unable to engage with standard information.Patient or public contributionReview progress was reported to the CanEngage team, including the consumer steering group, to inform project priorities (PROSPERO CRD42020196453).

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals experiencing disadvantage or marginalisation often face difficulty accessing primary health care. Overcoming access barriers is important for improving the health of these populations. Brokers can empower and enable people to access resources; however, their role in increasing access to health services has not been well-defined or researched in the literature. This review aims to identify whether a health service broker working with health and social service providers in the community can (a) identify individuals experiencing vulnerability who may benefit from improved access to quality primary care, and (b) link these individuals with an appropriate primary care provider for enduring, appropriate primary care.MethodsSix databases were searched for studies published between January 2008 and August 2015 that evaluated a health service broker intervention linking adults experiencing vulnerability to primary care. Relevant websites were also searched. Included studies were analysed using candidacy theory and a realist matrix was developed to identify mechanisms that may have contributed to changes in response to the interventions in different contexts.ResultsEleven studies were included in the review. Of the eight studies judged to provide detailed description of the programs, the interventions predominately addressed two domains of candidacy (identification of candidacy and navigation), with limited applicability to the third and fourth dimensions (permeability of services and appearances at health services). Six of the eight studies were judged to have successfully linked their target group to primary care. The majority of the interventions focused on assisting patients to reach services and did not look at ways that providers or health services could alter the way they deliver care to improve access.ConclusionsWhile specific mechanisms behind the interventions could not be identified, it is suggested that individual advocacy may be a key element in the success of these types of interventions. The interventions were found to address some dimensions of candidacy, with health service brokers able to help people to identify their need for care and to access, navigate and interact with services. More consideration should be given to the influence of providers on patient candidacy, rather than placing the onus on patients.

Dataset Information

A systematic review and realist synthesis on toilet paper hoarding: COVID or not COVID, that is the question.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Study selection

Outcomes and measures

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Results

Conclusions

Registration

Publications

A systematic review and realist synthesis on toilet paper hoarding: COVID or not COVID, that is the question.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets