| Literature DB >> 33704456 |
Chelsea Moran1, David J T Campbell2, Tavis S Campbell1, Pamela Roach3,4, Lyne Bourassa5, Zoe Collins5, Marysia Stasiewicz5, Patrick McLane6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical distancing, wearing face masks and hand hygiene are evidence-based methods to protect the public from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. There has been a proliferation of research examining characteristics that can be targeted by public health interventions. This rapid review sought to identify predictors of attitudes toward and adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines, and identify interventions aiming to improve adherence.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; adherence; attitudes; face masks; hygiene; physical distancing; protective behaviors; public health guidelines
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33704456 PMCID: PMC7989238 DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab070
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) ISSN: 1741-3842 Impact factor: 2.341
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Population | • Human participants • Adults (≥18 years) • Residing in North America, Europe, Mexico, Australia or New Zealand or with international scope including any of these countries | • Non-human participants • Children (<18 years) • Residing outside of North America, Europe, Australia or New Zealand |
| Intervention and comparator | • Interventions intended to improve attitudes toward or adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines of any kind • Any comparison group | • Biomedical interventions |
| Predictors | • Any factor that may be related to individual-level behavior and could be used to either inform or act as targets of public health response to promote adherence to COVID-19 behaviors | • Studies reporting exclusively on outcomes related to psychological traits and socio-cultural characteristics |
| Outcome | • Attitudes toward following or adhering to COVID-19 public health guidelines (i.e. hand hygiene, physical distancing and wearing of face coverings) | • Outcomes related to case incidence, transmission or other COVID-19 related outcomes that are not related to individual-level attitudes or behaviors |
| Study design | • Primary reports • Studies available in English • Empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals, grey literature or preprints | • Not available in English • Descriptive studies, study protocols, opinion pieces and review articles • Studies relying on convenience samples of < 1000 where weighting or resampling was not done |
Characteristics of included studies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al-Hasan et al., 2020 | International | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Participants from the USA, Kuwait and South Korea | 482 (USA 207; Kuwait 181; South Korea 94) | Stratified convenience sample—representative (global survey-deploying firm recruited respondents using age, gender, ethnicity and geographic region-based strata and quota matching processes) |
|
| Allington et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | United Kingdom | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Data collected from 3 to 7 April 2020 for Study 1 (18 years or older), 1 and 3 April 2020 for Study 2 and 20 and 22 May 2020 for Study 3 (16–75 years old for studies 2 and 3) | 949 (study 1); | Convenience sample (study 1); Stratified random samples—representative (studies 2 & 3) Study 1—recruitment in partnership with CitizenMe, invitations sent to all adult UK panel members. Study 2 & 3—recruitment in partnership with Ipsos-MORI (member of British Polling Council) to a stratified random sample of UK adulted aged 16–75 with quotas to achieve national representativeness with regard to age within gender, region, working status, social grade and education) |
|
| Banai et al., 2020 [Preprint] | Croatia | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of Croatia, 18 years and older | 1882 | Convenience sample (direct social media promotion) |
|
| Bridgman et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | Canada | Correlational—cross-sectional survey, Qualitative | Residents of Canada, 18 years and older | 2022; 2.5 million tweets and 8857 news articles | Stratified convenience sample—representative |
|
| Brodeur et al., 2020 [Report] | United States | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | US residents who own a cell phone (for mobility data) across 436 counties | 1139; Data from 436 US counties | Mobility data: convenience sample (mobile phone users with appropriate settings enabled); |
|
| Clements, 2020 [Peer reviewed] | United States | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | US residents aged 18 years or older. Data collected on 17 March 2020 | 1034 | Convenience sample (recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk’s [Mturk] online platform that pay remote workers to complete small tasks) |
|
| de la Vega et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | Spain | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of Spain | 64 (study 1—shopping centre); 640 (study 2—online) | Systematic sampling (study 1—every 3rd person at shopping centre) & Convenience sample (study 2—direct social media recruitment) |
|
| De Neys et al., 2020 [Preprint] | International | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of > 10 countries | 1657 | Convenience sample (direct recruitment through social media, bulletin boards and email lists) |
|
| Doogan et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | International | Correlational—media analysis; Qualitative | Twitter ‘tweets’ related to COVID-19 across 6 countries between 1 January and 30 April 2020. | 777 869 tweets | Convenience sample (Publicly available tweets) |
|
| Everett et al., 2020 [Preprint] | United States | Experimental—2 × 4 between-subjects design | Residents of the USA | 1032 | Post-stratified convenience sample—representative (recruited representative US sample for age, sex and race/ethnicity) |
|
| Folmer et al., 2020 [Preprint] | Netherlands | Correlational—successive independent sample survey | Data collected between 8 and 14 May 2020 and 22 and 26 May 2020 | 984 (8–14 May); 1021 (22–26 May) | Stratified convenience sample—representative (recruited by the Dutch online research panel Motivation for a representative sample) |
|
| Freeman et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | United Kingdom | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Adults in England | 2501 | Stratified convenience sample—representative (survey managed by Lucid; multiple survey suppliers advertised the survey on social media, news, websites, etc.) |
|
| Goldberg et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | United States | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | US residents aged 18 years or older | 3933 (3 April — 1,740; 4 April 4 — 1,745; 5 April — 292; 6 April —154; 7 April — 2) | Stratified convenience sample—representative (national sample recruited by Climate Nexus Polling that utilized several market research panels in the USA to meet quotas matched to census parameters for sex, race, age, education, income and geographic region. Sampling weights used to account for any small deviations from census parameters) |
|
| Gutierrez et al., 2020 [Preprint] | Mexico | Experimental—cross-sectional survey | Individuals living in Mexico (78% living in Mexico City) | 1022 (date reported condition 508; occurrence data condition 514) | Convenience sample (recruited via email and social media) |
|
| Im & Chen, 2020 [Preprint] | International | Correlational—prospective longitudinal survey | Residents of 123 countries. | 14 022 mobility observations | Convenience sample (physical distancing data collected from users who turned on mobile device’s location history settings) |
|
| Jørgensen et al., 2020 [Preprint] | International | Correlational—prospective longitudinal cohort survey & cross-sectional survey | Residents of 7 countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, the UK and the USA) | 26 508 (cross-sectional sample with one observation); 10 569 (longitudinal panel sample with two observations) | Stratified convenience samples—representative (survey firm quota sampled panel respondents to match population margins for each country resulting in a cross-sectional sample [one assessment] and a panel sample [two assessments]) |
|
| Kantor & Kantor, 2020 [Peer reviewed] | United States | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of the USA | 1005 | Stratified convenience sample*- representative (survey distributed to a representative US sample stratified by age, sex and race) |
|
| Knotek II et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | USA | Correlational—cross-sectional surveys | US residents aged 18 years or older, fluent in English | 1141 | Stratified convenience sample—representative (quota sampling by Qualtrics Research Services to obtain nationally representative US sample) |
|
| Kuiper et al., 2020 [Preprint] | Netherlands | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of the Netherlands aged 18 years and older, English speaking | 568 | Stratified convenience sample—representative (recruited through the online platform Prolific Academic for representative sample and were redirected to Qualtrics) |
|
| Nivette et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | Switzerland | Correlational—prospective longitudinal cohort survey | 22 year olds who had been involved previously in the study | 737 | Stratified random sample (oversampling disadvantaged schools) |
|
| Pedersen & Favero, 2020 [Peer reviewed] | United States | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of the USA. | 1449 | Convenience sample (paid US survey respondents through crowdworking platform) |
|
| Pennycook et al., 2020 [Preprint] | International | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of Canada, UK and USA | 1975 (USA 689; UK 642; Canada 644) | Convenience sample (Canada); Stratified convenience sample—representative (quota-sampling in USA and UK) |
|
| Pickup et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | International | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of USA and Canada. | USA: 1009, Canada: 9889 | Quota samples (USA: Survey disseminated via Lucid, weights benchmarked on Hispanic or not, white or not, educational attainment; Canada: Survey disseminated via Vox Pop Labs, weights based on age group, sex, the highest level of educational attainment, vote recall in the 2019 Canadian federal election and region.) |
|
| Rothmund et al., 2020 [Preprint] | Germany | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of Germany. | 1575 (general public sample) | Stratified convenience sample—representative (quota sample from general public in Germany); Convenience sample (email recruitment to all virologists and epidemiologists listed on University and University hospital websites in Germany) |
|
| Seale et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | Australia | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of Australia, 18 years and older). | 1420 | Stratified convenience sample—representative (Online research company Quality Online Research recruited until a representative sample of the Australian population was obtained) |
|
| Soest et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | Norway | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Students at lower secondary level in Oslo. | 8116 (COVID survey); 3790 (2018); 19 799 (2020-pre-COVID) | Convenience sample (all students at lower secondary level in Oslo were invited to participate) |
|
| Soest et al., 2020 [Preprint] | Canada | Correlational—cross-sectional survey | Residents of Canada (provinces of Alberta and Ontario), 16 years and older and able to speak English | 1593 | Convenience sample (social media and website promotion targeting Alberta and Ontario residents) |
|
| Yousuf et al., 2020 [Peer reviewed] | Netherlands | Quasi-experimental—pretest-posttest survey design | Residents of the Netherlands | 16 072 (diagnostic survey); 17 189 (postcampaign survey) | Convenience samples (diagnostic and postcampaign surveys recruited respondents through the national Netherlands’ newspaper, De Telegraaf, and used the reach of a Dutch social influencer, Gover Sweep |
|
| Zickfeld | Norway | Correlational—cross-sectional | Norwegian adults | 8676 | Convenience sample (survey advertised social media and sent through email lists) |
|
a Note: Studies using convenience samples of n < 1000 were retained if there was some effort to perform stratified sampling, quota sampling, resampling or any attempt to account for sampling error.
Fig. 1Summary of most common factors examined in relation to attitude towards and/or adherence to COVID-19 public health recommendations.
Summary of evidence for factors predicting adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 14 | 10 | High | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
| Sex or gender | 14 | 9 | High | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
| Trust or confidence in government or authorities | 11 | 7 | High | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
| Education | 11 | 3 | Consistent lack of effect | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
| Perceiving COVID-19 as a threat | 9 | 6 | High | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
| Knowledge about pandemic or public health guidelines | 9 | 7 | Moderate | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
| Politics | 7 | 4 | High | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Physical distancing |
| Socio-economic status | 7 | 3 | High | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
| Primary media source | 6 | 4 | High | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines and physical distancing • Behavior: physical distancing adherence |
| Belief in conspiracy theories | 5 | 3 | High | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
| Trust in others | 5 | 2 | Not consistent | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behaviour: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
| Employment status | 6 | 3 | Consistent lack of effect | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
| Race or ethnicity | 4 | 3 | Not consistent | • Behavior: Physical distancing | • Behavior: Hygiene and physical distancing |
| Perceived effectiveness of protective behaviors recommended in public health guidelines | 4 | 4 | High | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | None |
| Trust in science, scientists or medicine | 4 | 3 | Moderate | • Behavior: Physical distancing | • Behaviors: Non-essential visits and travel distance |
| Capacity to comply | 3 | 3 | High | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | None |
| Household structure | 3 | 1 | Moderate | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Physical distancing behavior |
| Health status | 2 | 0 | Consistent lack of effect | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines | • Behavior: Overall adherence to COVID-19 public health guidelines |
Notes:
The following factors were only examined by single studies include in this review, and therefore are not included in this table: COVID-19 related experiences (e.g. tested, diagnosed, etc.), Media attention, Prevalence and existing policies, Provincial Residence and Social networks (i.e. family, school and quality of social networks).
Statistical significance was determined based on the alpha level defined by the authors of each included study.
Two independent raters assessed consistency of study results within each factor by examining studies that reported statistically significant results. Factors were labeled as high consistency (>80% of studies show an association of similar strength in the same direction), moderate consistency (50–79% of studies show an association of similar strength in the same direction), low consistency (≤50% of studies show no effect) or not consistent (directions of effect vary). Factors were labelled as having consistent lack of effect when more than half of relevant studies reported no statistically significant effect.
aSoest et al. (2020) did not report statistical significance and are included in this count as a non-significant result.
bClements (2020) did not report statistical significance and are included in this count as a non-significant result.
cRothmund et al. (2020) did not report statistical significance and are included in this count as a non-significant result.