Adherence to behavioral Covid-19 mitigation measures strongly predicts mortality.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Margraf J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8009358 | biostudies-literature | 2021
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Adherence to behavioral Covid-19 mitigation measures strongly predicts mortality.
Margraf Jürgen J Brailovskaia Julia J Schneider Silvia S
PloS one 20210330 3
In the absence of vaccines or causal therapies, behavioral measures such as wearing face masks and maintaining social distance are central to fighting Covid-19. Yet, their benefits are often questioned by the population and the level of adherence to the measures is variable. We examined in representative samples across eight countries (N = 7,568) whether adherence reported around June 1, 2020 predicted the increase in Covid-19 mortality by August 31, 2020. Mortality increased 81.3% in low adhere ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The current COVID-19 pandemic caught the decision makers in many countries sub-optimally prepared to respond. To better cope with similar situations in the future, it is vital to understand the major predictors of health-beneficial behavior and adherence to imposed mitigation measures and guidelines. To tailor the promotion of government-imposed measures, it is important to understand how the sociodemographic background combined with personality traits affect the perception and responsiveness of people. We investigated the perception and adherence to mitigation measures during the pandemic by examining their trends across several sociodemographic categories and personality dimensions. The strongest predictors of confidence in the preventive measures and their implementation were the participants' concern of infection and concern of infecting their loved ones, followed by gender and age. Education, settlement size, field and type of employment, household type, own medical problems, and the age and health of the participants' loved ones had a smaller influence on the perceived guidelines importance and implementation. Adherence to measures was positively related to the participants' score in conscientiousness and, in lesser extent, openness. Agreeableness, energy, and emotional stability correlated positively with adherence to basic guidelines. Study provides information useful for developing and adapting future public health policies and interventions.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02051-5.
| S-EPMC8310408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Knowledge on compliance with governmental recommendations in combating the spread of COVID-19 in different groups is important to target efforts. This study investigated the adherence to the governmental implemented COVID-19 measures and its predictors in Danish university students, a not-at-risk group for COVID-19 mortality and normally characterized by many social contacts. As part of the COVID-19 International Student Wellbeing Study, a survey on socio-demographic situation, study information, living arrangements, lifestyle behaviors, stress, questions about COVID-19 infection and knowledge and concern about COVID-19 infection was sent via email to relevant university students in Denmark in May, 2020 (n = 2.945). Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was employed. Our results showed that around 60% of the students were not concerned about COVID-19, while 68% reported that they followed governmental measures. The main facilitators for following the recommendations were older age, concern about COVID-19 and depression, while barriers were living in a student hall, being physical active or reporting mental stress. Only 9% of the variation in adhering to governmental recommendations could be explained by the analyzed predictors. Results may inform health communication. Emotionally appealing information rather than knowledge-based information may be more effective in motivating students to follow COVID-19 measures.
| S-EPMC7918694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSocial determinants of health (SDOH) may limit the practice of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) risk mitigation guidelines with health implications for individuals with underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD). Population-based evidence of the association between SDOH and practicing such mitigation strategies in adults with CVD is lacking. We used the National Opinion Research Center's COVID-19 Household Impact Survey conducted between April and June 2020 to evaluate sociodemographic disparities in adherence to COVID-19 risk mitigation measures in a sample of respondents with underlying CVD representing 18 geographic areas of the United States.MethodsCVD status was ascertained by self-reported history of receiving heart disease, heart attack, or stroke diagnosis. We built de novo, a cumulative index of SDOH burden using education, insurance, economic stability, 30-day food security, urbanicity, neighborhood quality, and integration. We described the practice of measures under the broad strategies of personal protection (mask, hand hygiene, and physical distancing), social distancing (avoiding crowds, restaurants, social activities, and high-risk contact), and work flexibility (work from home, canceling/postponing work). We reported prevalence ratios and 95% CIs for the association between SDOH burden (quartiles of cumulative indices) and practicing these measures adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, and interview wave.ResultsTwo thousand thirty-six of 25 269 (7.0%) adults, representing 8.69 million in 18 geographic areas of the United States, reported underlying CVD. Compared with the least SDOH burden, fewer individuals with the greatest SDOH burden practiced all personal protection (75.6% versus 89.0%) and social distancing measures (41.9% versus 58.9%) and had any flexible work schedule (26.2% versus 41.4%). These associations remained statistically significant after full adjustment: personal protection (prevalence ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.96]; P=0.009), social distancing (prevalence ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.51-0.94]; P=0.018), and work flexibility (prevalence ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.36-0.79]; P=0.002).ConclusionsSDOH burden is associated with lower COVID-19 risk mitigation practices in the CVD population. Identifying and prioritizing individuals whose medical vulnerability is compounded by social adversity may optimize emerging preventive efforts, including vaccination guidelines.
| S-EPMC8204764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince the start of the global COVID-19 pandemic, countries have been mirroring each other's policies to mitigate the spread of the virus. Whether current measures alone will lead to behavioral change such as social distancing, washing hands, and wearing a facemask is not well understood. The objective of this study is to better understand individual variation in behavioral responses to COVID-19 by exploring the influence of beliefs, motivations and policy measures on public health behaviors. We do so by comparing The Netherlands and Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium.Methods and findingsOur final sample included 2,637 respondents from The Netherlands and 1,678 from Flanders. The data was nationally representative along three dimensions: age, gender, and household income in both countries. Our key outcome variables of interest were beliefs about policy effectiveness; stated reasons for complying with public rules; and changes in behavior. For control variables, we included a number of measures of how severe the respondent believed Covid-19 to be and a number of negative side effects that the person may have experienced: loneliness, boredom, anxiety, and conflicts with friends and neighbors. Finally, we controlled for socio-demographic factors: age, gender, income (categorical), education (categorical) and the presence of Covid-19 risk factors (diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, asthma, allergies). The dependent variable for each of the estimation models is dichotomous, so we used Probit models to predict the probability of engaging in a given behavior. We found that motivations, beliefs about the effectiveness of measures, and pre-pandemic behavior play an important role. The Dutch were more likely to wash their hands than the Flemish (15.4%, p<0.01), visit family (15.5%, p < .01), run errands (12.0%, p<0.05) or go to large closed spaces such as a shopping mall (21.2%, p<0.01). The Dutch were significantly less likely to wear a mask (87.6%, p<0.01). We also found that beliefs about the virus, psychological effects of the virus, as well as pre-pandemic behavior play a role in adherence to recommendations.ConclusionsOur results suggest that policymakers should consider behavioral motivations specific to their country in their COVID-19 strategies. In addition, the belief that a policy is effective significantly increased the probability of the behavior, so policy measures should be accompanied by public health campaigns to increase adherence.
| S-EPMC8162620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To control the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, state and local governments in the United States have implemented several mitigation efforts that resulted in lower emissions of traffic-related air pollutants. This study examined the impacts of COVID-19 mitigation measures on air pollution levels and the subsequent reductions in mortality for urban areas in 10 US states and the District of Columbia. We calculated changes in levels of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter no larger than 2.5 μm (PM2.5) during mitigation period versus the baseline period (pre-mitigation measure) using the difference-in-difference approach and the estimated avoided total and cause-specific mortality attributable to these changes in PM2.5 by state and district. We found that PM2.5 concentration during the mitigation period decreased for most states (except for 3 states) and the capital. Decreases of average PM2.5 concentration ranged from 0.25 μg/m3 (4.3%) in Maryland to 4.20 μg/m3 (45.1%) in California. On average, PM2.5 levels across 7 states and the capital reduced by 12.8%. We estimated that PM2.5 reduction during the mitigation period lowered air pollution-related total and cause-specific deaths. An estimated 483 (95% CI: 307, 665) PM2.5-related deaths was avoided in the urban areas of California. Our findings have implications for the effects of mitigation efforts and provide insight into the mortality reductions can be achieved from reduced air pollution levels.
| S-EPMC7366090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUsing fear to increase the uptake of preventative health behaviours is a longstanding practice, which could be useful in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. However, the impact of fear campaigns beyond behavioural outcomes has rarely been considered. It is possible that these threatening health messages could heighten health-related anxiety by inducing a tendency to interpret ambiguous stimuli in a threatening manner. This research aimed to evaluate the effects of fear-based articles about COVID-19, on intentions to adhere to mitigation measures and interpretation bias-a core maintenance factor in health anxiety.MethodTwo pilot studies were conducted with the aim of validating our novel COVID-related measures and assessing engagement with the threat manipulation. Following this, 375 community members were recruited through social media for the main study. Participants were then randomly allocated to read an article about COVID which was manipulated on both threat and efficacy. After reading the article, participants then completed measures of interpretation bias and intentions to engage in COVID-19 mitigation measures.ResultsAlthough the threatening articles consistently produced greater COVID-related threat, they only generated a stronger interpretation bias in the first pilot study. Importantly, threat-based communications failed to enhance intentions to perform mitigation measures in any of the studies. Likewise, reading an article which bolstered self-efficacy did not increase intentions, compared to reading a low efficacy article.ConclusionThis research suggests that fear appeals are unlikely to increase intentions to perform COVID-related mitigation measures.
| S-EPMC9628502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the past 6 months, the world has lost almost 950,000 lives because of the outbreak of COVID-19, with more than 31 million individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 worldwide. In response, lockdowns, and various other policies have been implemented. Unfortunately, many individuals are violating those policies and governments have been urging people to comply with the behavioral guidelines. In this paper, we argue that personality traits need to be considered to understand and encourage more effective public compliance with COVID 19 transmission mitigation behavioral guidelines. Using a sample of 8,548 individuals from Japan, we show that certain personality traits are related to the tendency to comply with COVID-19 transmission mitigation behavioral guidelines. We emphasize the importance of understanding why people respond differently to the same authority's messages and provide actionable insights for government policy makers and those who implement policies.
| S-EPMC7544078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Behavioral measures, such as the wearing of facemasks and maintaining of distance to other people, have been central in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be important in curbing its spread. We therefore investigated their perceived usefulness, adherence and their predictors in representative online samples in eight countries (France, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, U.K., U.S.). Of the 7,658 participants, 77.4% rated governmental measures (highest: Germany, lowest: France) as useful and 91.7% reported adherence to them. Adherence was lowest in Russia and Poland, where people felt particularly left alone and not well supported, and in the U.S. and Sweden, where governments showed ambivalent attitudes towards the measures. The highest adherence was reported in countries with very high mortality (U.K., Spain, France) or very positively perceived government communication (Germany). Female gender, higher age, belonging to a risk group, being affected physically and mentally, perception of governmental communication as guided by the interests of people, feeling of being well informed and the level of positive mental health positively predicted both outcomes, while being affected economically negatively predicted both outcomes. Country-specific results are considered in the light of the protection motivation theory and the theory of planned behavior together with potential ways to improve active participation of the population. Overall, we recommend the governments and authorities to stress that each individual can contribute to the control of the COVID-19 situation by adherence to the measures in the public communication. Moreover, they should emphasize the risk of unconscious infection of older individuals by younger people, as well as the importance of physical activity for the protection of mental and physical health especially during the pandemic.
| S-EPMC7721173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Behavioral risk factors, such as smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, obesity, and unhealthy food intake are added risk factors for severe outcomes of COVID-19 infections. Preventive measures to avoid infections are therefore particularly important for individuals engaging in behavioral risk factors. We seek to determine whether behavioral risk factors (BRFs) play a significant role in the adherence to preventive COVID-19 measures in a population aged 50 and above. The SHARE wave 8 (Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe) and SHARE COVID-19 Survey served as the database, resulting in an analytical sample of 17,588 respondents from 23 European countries plus Israel. Of these 36.04% engaged in at least one BRF and 16.68% engaged in 3 or more BRFs. Multilevel logistic regressions revealed that engagement in one BRF was significantly associated with less adherence to hygiene preventive measures, i.e., hand-sanitizing, hand-washing and covering coughs and sneezes (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78; 0.94), as was engagement in two BRFs (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74; 0.97) and three or more BRFs (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59; 0.88). No such association was found between engagement in BRFs and adherences to social isolation preventive measures, i.e., avoiding meeting more than five people, visiting others or going shopping, or regulated preventive measures, i.e., wearing a mask and keeping physical distance. The found association was also stronger when three or more BRFs were engaged in (1 vs. 3 BRFs: χ2 = 3.43, p = 0.06; 2 vs. 3 BRFs: χ2 = 6.05; p = 0.01). The study gives insight into the protective behavior of a population with inherent vulnerability during a global health emergency. It lays the foundation for follow-up research about the evolution of adherence to preventive measures as the pandemic progresses and about long-term behavioral changes. In addition, it can aide efforts in increasing preventive compliance by raising awareness of the added risk behavioral risk factors pose.
| S-EPMC8219917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Given the unprecedented level and duration of mitigation policies during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, it is not surprising that the public and the media have raised important questions about the potential for negative mental health consequences of the measures. To answer them, natural variability in policy implementation across US states and over time was analyzed to determine if mitigation policies correlated with Google searches for terms associated with symptoms of depression and anxiety. Findings indicated that restaurant/bar limits and stay-at-home orders correlated with immediate increases in searches for isolation and worry but the effects tapered off two to four weeks after their respective peaks. Moreover, the policies correlated with a reduction in searches for antidepressants and suicide, thus revealing no evidence of increases in severe symptomatology. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.
| S-EPMC7708804 | biostudies-literature