Dataset Information

Intentional and unintentional non-adherence to social distancing measures during COVID-19: A mixed-methods analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Eraso Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8376044 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Across the United States, various social distancing measures were implemented to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the effectiveness of such measures for specific regions with varying population demographic characteristics and different levels of adherence to social distancing is uncertain. OBJECTIVE:To determine the effect of social distancing measures in unique regions. DESIGN:An agent-based simulation model. SETTING:Agent-based model applied to Dane County, Wisconsin; the Milwaukee metropolitan (metro) area; and New York City (NYC). PATIENTS:Synthetic population at different ages. INTERVENTION:Different times for implementing and easing social distancing measures at different levels of adherence. MEASUREMENTS:The model represented the social network and interactions among persons in a region, considering population demographic characteristics, limited testing availability, "imported" infections, asymptomatic disease transmission, and age-specific adherence to social distancing measures. The primary outcome was the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. RESULTS:The timing of and adherence to social distancing had a major effect on COVID-19 occurrence. In NYC, implementing social distancing measures 1 week earlier would have reduced the total number of confirmed cases from 203 261 to 41 366 as of 31 May 2020, whereas a 1-week delay could have increased the number of confirmed cases to 1 407 600. A delay in implementation had a differential effect on the number of cases in the Milwaukee metro area versus Dane County, indicating that the effect of social distancing measures varies even within the same state. LIMITATION:The effect of weather conditions on transmission dynamics was not considered. CONCLUSION:The timing of implementing and easing social distancing measures has major effects on the number of COVID-19 cases. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Project description:ImportancePolicies to promote social distancing can minimize COVID-19 transmission but come with substantial social and economic costs. Quantifying relative preferences among the public for such practices can inform locally relevant policy prioritization and optimize uptake.ObjectiveTo evaluate relative utilities (ie, preferences) for COVID-19 pandemic social distancing strategies against the hypothetical risk of acquiring COVID-19 and anticipated income loss.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study recruited individuals living in the Missouri area from May to June 2020 via randomly distributed unincentivized social media advertisements and local recruitment platforms for members of minority racial and ethnic groups. Participants answered 6 questions that asked them to choose between 2 hypothetical counties where business closures, social distancing policy duration, COVID-19 infection risk, and income loss varied.Main outcomes and measuresReweighted population-level relative preferences (utilities) for social distancing policies, subgroups, and latent classes.ResultsThe survey had a 3% response rate (3045 of 90 320). Of the 2428 respondents who completed the survey, 1669 (75%) were 35 years and older, 1536 (69%) were women, and 1973 (89%) were White. After reweighting to match Missouri population demographic characteristics, the strongest preference was for the prohibition of large gatherings (mean preference, -1.43; 95% CI, -1.67 to -1.18), with relative indifference to the closure of social and lifestyle venues (mean preference, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.17). There were weak preferences to keep outdoor venues (mean preference, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.61) and schools (mean preference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.30) open. Latent class analysis revealed 4 distinct preference phenotypes in the population: risk averse (48.9%), conflicted (22.5%), prosocial (14.9%), and back to normal (13.7%), with men twice as likely as women to belong to the back to normal group than the risk averse group (relative risk ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.12).Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study using a discrete choice experiment, public health policies that prohibited large gatherings, as well as those that closed social and lifestyle venues, appeared to be acceptable to the public. During policy implementation, these activities should be prioritized for first-phase closures. These findings suggest that policy messages that address preference heterogeneity (eg, focusing on specific preference subgroups or targeting men) could improve adherence to social distancing measures for COVID-19 and future pandemics.

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.

Dataset Information

Intentional and unintentional non-adherence to social distancing measures during COVID-19: A mixed-methods analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets