Dataset Information

Factors associated with non-adherence to social distancing rules during the COVID-19 pandemic: a logistic regression analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

On March 23, 2020, the government of the United Kingdom told the British people to stay home, an unprecedented request designed to limit the spread of the COVID-19 virus and stop the National Health Service from being overwhelmed.

Methods

This study undertook a cross-sectional design to survey a convenience sample of 681 residents of North London on their social distancing (SD) behaviours, demographics, housing situation, politics, psychology and social support using an online questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to measure the associations between these explanatory factors and non-adherence to all SD rules and intentional non-adherence to SD rules.

Results

The vast majority (92.8%) of participants did not adhere to all SD rules and nearly half (48.6%) engaged in intentional non-adherence of rules. The odds of not adhering to all SD rules increased if a participant was not identified as highly vulnerable to COVID-19 [OR = 4.5], had lower control over others' distancing [OR = .724], had lower control over responsibilities for which coming into contact with others was unavoidable [OR = .642], and if SD behaviours were reported after lockdown was first relaxed [OR = .261]. The odds of intentionally not adhering to SD rules increased if a participant had a lower intention to socially distance [OR = .468], had lower control over others' distancing [OR = .829], had a doctoral degree compared to a master's degree [OR = .332], a professional qualification [OR = .307], a bachelor's degree [OR = .361] or work-related qualification [OR = .174], voted for the UK Government compared to not voting for the Government [OR = .461], perceived higher normative pressure from neighbours [OR = 1.121] and had greater support from friends [OR = 1.465].

Conclusions

Non-adherence to all SD rules had a stronger association with vulnerability to COVID-19 and control over SD, whereas intentional non-adherence had a stronger association with intention and anti-social psychological factors. It is recommended that people living in high-risk environments, such as those living in houses of multiple occupancy, should be specially supported when asked to stay at home, and public health messaging should emphasise shared responsibility and public consciousness.

SUBMITTER: Hills S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7881344 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Even early in the COVID-19 pandemic, adherence to physical distancing measures was variable, exposing some communities to elevated risk. While cognitive factors from the Health Belief Model (HBM) and resilience correlate with compliance with physical distancing, external conditions may preclude full compliance with physical distancing guidelines. Our objective was to identify HBM and resilience constructs that could be used to improve adherence to physical distancing even when full compliance is not possible. We examined adherence as expressed through 7-day non-work, non-household contact rates in two cohorts: 1) adults in households with children from Minnesota and Iowa; and 2) adults ≥50 years-old from Minnesota, one-third of whom had Parkinson's disease. We identified multiple cognitive factors associated with physical distancing adherence, specifically perceived severity, benefits, self-efficacy, and barriers. However, the magnitude, and occasionally the direction, of these associations was population-dependent. In Cohort 1, perceived self-efficacy for remaining 6-feet from others was associated with a 29% lower contact rate (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.65, 0.77). This finding was consistent across all race/ethnicity and income groups we examined. The barriers to adherence of having a child in childcare and having financial concerns had the largest effects among individuals from marginalized racial and ethnic groups and high-income households. In Cohort 2, self-efficacy to quarantine/isolate was associated with a 23% decrease in contacts (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.66, 0.89), but upon stratification by education level, the association was only present for those with at least a Bachelor's degree. Education also modified the effect of the barrier to adherence leaving home for work, increasing contacts among those with a Bachelor's degree and reducing contacts among those without. Our findings suggest that public health messaging tailored to the identified cognitive factors has the potential to improve physical distancing adherence, but population-specific needs must be considered to maximize effectiveness.

Project description:IntroductionGovernments and public health authorities across many jurisdictions implemented social (physical) distancing measures to contain the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Adherence to these measures is variable and likely influenced by various factors. This study aimed to 1) identify the individual sociodemographic, COVID-19 and social distancing related, and psychological determinants of social distancing adherence, and 2) explore regional differences in social distancing adherence in the United States (U.S.) and English-speaking Canada based on each region's discrepant response to social distancing restrictions.MethodsA web-based repeated cross-sectional survey was conducted in 4,942 English-speaking participants from the four most populous U.S. states, specifically New York, California, Texas, and Florida, and Canada (www.covid19-database.com). The study was conducted at two timepoints, from May 1 to 5, 2020 (n = 1,019, Canadian participants only) and from July 6 to 10, 2020 (n = 3,923). Separate univariate models were computed for individual sociodemographic, COVID-19 and social distancing related, and psychological determinants of social distancing adherence. To determine the total variance explained, a univariate analysis including all of the determinants was performed. Regional differences in social distancing were compared between the four U.S. states and Canada, and between the U.S. as a whole and Canada.ResultsAdherence to social distancing was higher in May (mean = 4.4/5.0±0.7) compared to July (mean = 4.3/5.0±0.7) [t (4940) = 6.96, p < 0.001], likely a reflection of relaxing restrictions. There were no regional differences in adherence. Sociodemographic, COVID-19 and social distancing related, and psychological determinants explained 10, 36, and 23% of the variance of social distancing adherence, respectively. Higher perceived seriousness of COVID-19 [β (SE) = 0.39 (0.01), p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.22], lower risk propensity [β (SE) = -0.15 (0.01), p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.06], germ aversion [β (SE) = 0.12 (0.01), p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.03], age [β (SE) = 0.01 (0.00), p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.02], and greater social support [β (SE) = 0.03 (0.00), p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.02] had the largest effects on social distancing adherence.ConclusionPublic service initiatives to emphasize the serious consequences of infection and targeted interventions toward certain sociodemographic groups, such as younger adults and vulnerable individuals in greater need of social support, may help enhance the public's adherence to social distancing measures during subsequent waves of COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Project description:Social distancing measures implemented by governments worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic have proven an effective intervention to control the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. There is a growing literature on predictors of adherence behaviours to social distancing measures, however, there are no comprehensive insights into the nature and types of non-adherence behaviours. To address this gap in the literature, we studied non-adherence in terms of counts of infringements and people's accounts on their behaviours in a sample of North London residents. We focused on the following social distancing rules: keeping 2 mts. distancing, meeting family and friends, and going out for non-essential reasons. A mixed-methods explanatory sequential design was used comprising an online survey (May 1-31, 2020) followed by semi-structured in-depth interviews held with a purposive sample of survey respondents (August 5 -September 21, 2020). A negative binomial regression model (quantitative) and Framework Analysis (qualitative) were undertaken.681 individuals completed the survey, and 30 individuals were interviewed. We integrated survey and interview findings following three levels of the Social Ecological model: individual, interpersonal and community levels. We identified non-adherence behaviours as unintentional (barriers beyond individual's control) and intentional (deliberate decision). Unintentional adherence was reported by interviewees as, lack of controllability in keeping 2 mts. distancing, environmental constraints, social responsibility towards the community and feeling low risk. Intentional non-adherence was statistically associated with and reported as lack of trust in Government, support from friends, and lack of knowledge about rules. In addition, interviewees reported individual risk assessment and decision making on the extent to following the rules, and perceived lack of adherence in the local area. Our findings indicate that unintentional and intentional non-adherence should be improved by Government partnerships with local communities to build trust in social distancing measures; tailored messaging to young adults emphasising the need of protecting others whilst clarifying the risk of transmission; and ensuring COVID-secured environments by working with environmental health officers.

Project description:Background: The mitigation strategies employed against the COVID-19 pandemic have severe mental health consequences. In particular, as a result of the social distancing protocols, loneliness is likely to increase. This study investigates (a) potential risk and resilience factors for loneliness in the Norwegian population during the strict social distancing non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) implemented against the pandemic and (b) the associations between loneliness and psychopathology symptoms. Methods: A survey was disseminated online to the adult Norwegian population when strict social distancing measures had been implemented for 2 weeks. The resulting sample of 10,061 respondents was unproportionate in terms of gender and educational level and thus sensitivity analyses were conducted. The levels of loneliness were compared across demographic sub-groups, and regression analyses were conducted to identify potential risk and resilience factors for loneliness and associations between loneliness and psychopathology symptoms. Results: Among the stable factors, being single and having a psychiatric diagnosis were related to more loneliness with small effect sizes. Among the state risk factors, more rumination and worry in general were associated with stronger loneliness, showing a medium effect size. Among the coping behaviors examined, doing new things at home not done otherwise was negatively related to loneliness, with a small effect size. Loneliness was associated with both depression and anxiety with small effect sizes when all potential confounders and psychiatric diagnosis were controlled for. The relationship to depression was more marked than the relationship to anxiety. Conclusions: The findings suggest that singles and those with a psychiatric diagnosis were most affected by loneliness during the implementation of social distancing measures to impede the coronavirus. The results support the link between loneliness and depression and anxiety symptoms. The results of the analysis of potential risk and resilience factors point to intervention targets for reducing loneliness during pandemic crises.

Project description:This article describes patterns of compliance with social distancing measures among the Spanish population during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. It identifies several factors associated with higher or lower compliance with recommended measures of social distancing. This research is part of a 67-country study, titled the International COVID-19 study on Social & Moral Psychology, in which we use a Spanish dataset. Participants were residents in Spain aged 18 or above. The sample comprises 1,090 respondents, weighted to be representative of the Spanish population. Frequencies, correlations, bivariate analysis, and six models based on hierarchical multiple regressions were applied. The main finding is that most Spaniards are compliant with established guidelines of social distance during the pandemic (State of Alarm, before May 2020). Variables associated more with lower levels of compliance with these standards were explored. Six hierarchical multiple regression models found that compliance with social distance measures has a multifactorial explanation (R 2 between 20.4 and 49.1%). Sociodemographic factors, personal hygiene patterns, and the interaction between personal hygiene patterns and the support for political measures related to the coronavirus brought significant effects on the regression models. Less compliance was also associated with beliefs in some specific conspiracy theories with regard to COVID-19 or general conspiracy mentality (Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire, CMQ), consumption patterns of traditional mass media (television, paper newspapers, magazines, and radio) and modern means to get informed (online digital newspapers, blogs, and social networks), political ideology, vote, trust in institutions, and political identification. Among the future lines of action in preventing the possible outbreak of the virus, we suggest measures to reinforce trust in official information, mainly linked to reducing the influence of disinformation and conspiracy theories parallel to the pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundImplementing and lifting social distancing (LSD) is an urgent global issue during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly when the travel ban is lifted to revive international businesses and economies. However, when and whether LSD can be considered is subject to the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the recovery rate, and the case-fatality rate. It is imperative to provide real-time assessment of three factors to guide LSD.ObjectiveA simple LSD index was developed for health decision makers to do real-time assessment of COVID-19 at the global, country, region, and community level.MethodsData on the retrospective cohort of 186 countries with three factors were retrieved from a publicly available repository from January to early July. A simple index for guiding LSD was measured by the cumulative number of COVID-19 cases and recoveries, and the case-fatality rate was envisaged. If the LSD index was less than 1, LSD can be considered. The dynamic changes of the COVID-19 pandemic were evaluated to assess whether and when health decision makers allowed for LSD and when to reimplement social distancing after resurgences of the epidemic.ResultsAfter large-scale outbreaks in a few countries before mid-March (prepandemic phase), the global weekly LSD index peaked at 4.27 in March and lasted until mid-June (pandemic phase), during which most countries were affected and needed to take various social distancing measures. Since, the value of LSD has gradually declined to 0.99 on July 5 (postpandemic phase), at which 64.7% (120/186) of countries and regions had an LSD<1 with the decile between 0 and 1 to refine risk stratification by countries. The LSD index decreased to 1 in about 115 days. In addition, we present the results of dynamic changes of the LSD index for the world and for each country and region with different time windows from January to July 5. The results of the LSD index on the resurgence of the COVID-19 epidemic in certain regions and validation by other emerging infectious diseases are presented.ConclusionsThis simple LSD index provides a quantitative assessment of whether and when to ease or implement social distancing to provide advice for health decision makers and travelers.