Dataset Information

Contextualising COVID-19 prevention behaviour over time in Australia: Patterns and long-term predictors from April to July 2020 in an online social media sample.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In Australia in March 2020 a national public health directive required that non-essential workers stay at home, except for essential activities. These restrictions began easing in May 2020 as community transmission slowed.

Objectives

This study investigated changes in COVID prevention behaviours from April-July 2020, and psychosocial predictors of these behaviours.

Methods

An Australia-wide (national) survey was conducted in April, with monthly follow-up over four months. Participants who were adults (18+ years), currently residing in Australia and who could read and understand English were eligible. Recruitment was via online social media. Analysis sample included those who provided responses to the baseline survey (April) and at least one subsequent follow-up survey (N = 1834 out of a possible 3216 who completed the April survey). 71.7% of the sample was female (n = 1,322). Principal components analysis (PCA) combined self-reported adherence across seven prevention behaviours. PCA identified two behaviour types: 'distancing' (e.g. staying 1.5m away) and 'hygiene' (e.g. washing hands), explaining 28.3% and 24.2% of variance, respectively. Distancing and hygiene behaviours were analysed individually using multivariable regression models.

Results

On average, participants agreed with statements of adherence for all behaviours (means all above 4 out of 7). Distancing behaviours declined each month (p's < .001), whereas hygiene behaviours remained relatively stable. For distancing, stronger perceptions of societal risk, self-efficacy to maintain distancing, and greater perceived social obligation at baseline were associated with adherence in June and July (p's<0.05). For hygiene, the only significant correlate of adherence in June and July was belief that one's actions could prevent infection of family members (p < .001).

Conclusion

High adherence to COVID prevention behaviours were reported in this social media sample; however, distancing behaviours tended to decrease over time. Belief in social responsibility may be an important aspect to consider in encouraging distancing behaviours. These findings have implications for managing a shift from government-imposed restrictions to individual responsibility.

SUBMITTER: Ayre J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8241082 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear what the best strategy is for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among residents of homeless shelters and what individual factors are associated with testing positive for the virus. We sought to evaluate factors associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 among residents of homeless shelters and to evaluate positivity rates in shelters where testing was conducted in response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks or for surveillance.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart audit to obtain repeated cross-sectional data from outreach testing done at homeless shelters between Apr. 1 and July 31, 2020, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. We compared the SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate for shelters where testing was conducted because of an outbreak (at least 1 known case) with those tested for surveillance (no known cases). A patient-level analysis evaluated differences in demographic, health and behavioural characteristics of residents who did and did not test positive for SARS-CoV-2 at shelters with at least 2 positive cases.ResultsOne thousand nasopharyngeal swabs were done on 872 unique residents at 20 shelter locations. Among the 504 tests done in outbreak settings, 69 (14%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 1 (0.2%) was indeterminate. Among the 496 tests done for surveillance, 11 (2%) were positive and none were indeterminate. Shelter residents who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were significantly less likely to have a health insurance card (54% v. 72%, p = 0.03) or to have visited another shelter in the last 14 days (0% v. 18%, p < 0.01). There was no association between SARS-CoV-2 positivity and medical history or symptoms.InterpretationOur findings support testing of asymptomatic shelter residents for SARS-CoV-2 when a positive case is identified at the same shelter. Surveillance testing when there are no known positive cases may detect outbreaks, but further research should identify efficient strategies given scarce testing resources.

Project description:BackgroundBetween March and December, 2020, more than 20 000 laboratory-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported in Zambia. However, the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections is likely to be higher than the confirmed case counts because many infected people have mild or no symptoms, and limitations exist with regard to testing capacity and surveillance systems in Zambia. We aimed to estimate SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in six districts of Zambia in July, 2020, using a population-based household survey.MethodsBetween July 4 and July 27, 2020, we did a cross-sectional cluster-sample survey of households in six districts of Zambia. Within each district, 16 standardised enumeration areas were randomly selected as primary sampling units using probability proportional to size. 20 households from each standardised enumeration area were selected using simple random sampling. All members of selected households were eligible to participate. Consenting participants completed a questionnaire and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection using real-time PCR (rtPCR) and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using ELISA. Prevalence estimates, adjusted for the survey design, were calculated for each diagnostic test separately, and combined. We applied the prevalence estimates to census population projections for each district to derive the estimated number of SARS-CoV-2 infections.FindingsOverall, 4258 people from 1866 households participated in the study. The median age of participants was 18·2 years (IQR 7·7-31·4) and 50·6% of participants were female. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence for the combined measure was 10·6% (95% CI 7·3-13·9). The rtPCR-positive prevalence was 7·6% (4·7-10·6) and ELISA-positive prevalence was 2·1% (1·1-3·1). An estimated 454 708 SARS-CoV-2 infections (95% CI 312 705-596 713) occurred in the six districts between March and July, 2020, compared with 4917 laboratory-confirmed cases reported in official statistics from the Zambia National Public Health Institute.InterpretationThe estimated number of SARS-CoV-2 infections was much higher than the number of reported cases in six districts in Zambia. The high rtPCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was consistent with observed community transmission during the study period. The low ELISA-positive SARS-CoV-2 prevalence might be associated with mitigation measures instituted after initial cases were reported in March, 2020. Zambia should monitor patterns of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and promote measures that can reduce transmission.FundingUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Project description:ObjectiveAlthough widespread testing for SARS-CoV-2 is in place, little is known about how well the public understands these results. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the general public's grasp of the accuracy and significance of the results of the swab test.DesignWeb-based behavioural experiment.SettingItaly during the April 2020 lockdown.Participants566 Italian residents.Main outcome measuresParticipants' estimates of the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence; the predictive and diagnostic accuracy of the test; the behavioural impact of (positive vs negative) test results; the perceived usefulness of a short-term repetition of the test following positive or negative results; and rankings of causes for false positives and false negatives.ResultsMost participants considered the swab test useful (89.6%) and provided predictive values consistent with their estimates of test diagnostic accuracy and infection prevalence (67.0%). Participants acknowledged the effects of symptomatic status and geographical location on prevalence (all p<0.001) but failed to take this information into account when estimating the positive or negative predictive value. Overall, test specificity was underestimated (91.5%, 95% CI 90.2% to 92.8%); test sensitivity was overestimated (89.7%, 95% CI 88.3% to 91.0%). Positive results were evaluated as more informative than negative ones (91.6, 95% CI 90.2 to 93.1 and 41.0, 95% CI 37.9 to 44.0, respectively, p<0.001); a short-term repetition of the test was considered more useful after a positive than a negative result (62.7, 95% CI 59.6 to 65.7 and 47.2, 95% CI 44.4 to 50.0, respectively, p=0.013). Human error and technical characteristics were assessed as more likely to be the causes of false positives (p<0.001); the level of the viral load as the cause of false negatives (p<0.001).ConclusionsWhile some aspects of the swab for SARS-CoV-2 are well grasped, others are not and may have a strong bearing on the general public's health and well-being. The obtained findings provide policymakers with a detailed picture that can guide the design and implementation of interventions for improving efficient communication with the general public as well as adherence to precautionary behaviour.