Liam Wright1,2, Andrew Steptoe1, Daisy Fancourt1. 1. Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the absence of a vaccine, governments have focused on social distancing, self-isolation, and increased hygiene procedures to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Compliance with these measures requires voluntary cooperation from citizens. Yet, compliance is not complete. Existing research on the predictors of compliance is almost exclusively based on cross-sectional data, raising the possibility of reverse causality and confounding. METHODS: Using data from the UCL COVID-19 Social Study, a large weekly online panel of UK adults from first three months of lockdown in the UK (n = 51,600), we tested whether within-person changes in confidence in government, mental wellbeing, social experiences and awareness of COVID-19 were longitudinally related to self-reported compliance levels with guidelines from authorities using random intercept cross-lagged panel models. FINDINGS: We found evidence of a small longitudinal association between increased confidence in government to tackle the pandemic and higher self-reported compliance, but little evidence that factors such as mental health and wellbeing, worries about future adversities, and social isolation and loneliness were related to later compliance. We found higher self-reported compliance was longitudinally related to higher depressive symptoms. We found that low compliance was related to lower leisure engagement, providing care, and working outside the home. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that to effectively manage the pandemic, governments should ensure that confidence is maintained. FUNDING: Nuffield Foundation, Wellcome Trust and the MARCH Mental Health Network. MARCH is funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UK Research and Innovation.
BACKGROUND: In the absence of a vaccine, governments have focused on social distancing, self-isolation, and increased hygiene procedures to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Compliance with these measures requires voluntary cooperation from citizens. Yet, compliance is not complete. Existing research on the predictors of compliance is almost exclusively based on cross-sectional data, raising the possibility of reverse causality and confounding. METHODS: Using data from the UCL COVID-19 Social Study, a large weekly online panel of UK adults from first three months of lockdown in the UK (n = 51,600), we tested whether within-person changes in confidence in government, mental wellbeing, social experiences and awareness of COVID-19 were longitudinally related to self-reported compliance levels with guidelines from authorities using random intercept cross-lagged panel models. FINDINGS: We found evidence of a small longitudinal association between increased confidence in government to tackle the pandemic and higher self-reported compliance, but little evidence that factors such as mental health and wellbeing, worries about future adversities, and social isolation and loneliness were related to later compliance. We found higher self-reported compliance was longitudinally related to higher depressive symptoms. We found that low compliance was related to lower leisure engagement, providing care, and working outside the home. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that to effectively manage the pandemic, governments should ensure that confidence is maintained. FUNDING: Nuffield Foundation, Wellcome Trust and the MARCH Mental Health Network. MARCH is funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UK Research and Innovation.
Authors: Jay J Van Bavel; Katherine Baicker; Paulo S Boggio; Valerio Capraro; Aleksandra Cichocka; Mina Cikara; Molly J Crockett; Alia J Crum; Karen M Douglas; James N Druckman; John Drury; Oeindrila Dube; Naomi Ellemers; Eli J Finkel; James H Fowler; Michele Gelfand; Shihui Han; S Alexander Haslam; Jolanda Jetten; Shinobu Kitayama; Dean Mobbs; Lucy E Napper; Dominic J Packer; Gordon Pennycook; Ellen Peters; Richard E Petty; David G Rand; Stephen D Reicher; Simone Schnall; Azim Shariff; Linda J Skitka; Sandra Susan Smith; Cass R Sunstein; Nassim Tabri; Joshua A Tucker; Sander van der Linden; Paul van Lange; Kim A Weeden; Michael J A Wohl; Jamil Zaki; Sean R Zion; Robb Willer Journal: Nat Hum Behav Date: 2020-04-30
Authors: E Pulcu; E J Thomas; P D Trotter; M McFarquhar; G Juhasz; B J Sahakian; J F W Deakin; I M Anderson; R Zahn; R Elliott Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Samantha K Brooks; Rebecca K Webster; Louise E Smith; Lisa Woodland; Simon Wessely; Neil Greenberg; Gideon James Rubin Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ryan P Badman; Ace X Wang; Martin Skrodzki; Heng-Chin Cho; David Aguilar-Lleyda; Naoko Shiono; Seng Bum Michael Yoo; Yen-Sheng Chiang; Rei Akaishi Journal: Behav Sci (Basel) Date: 2022-05-30
Authors: Adnan I Qureshi; William I Baskett; Wei Huang; Iryna Lobanova; S Hasan Naqvi; Chi-Ren Shyu Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Martin McKee; Danny Altmann; Anthony Costello; Karl Friston; Zubaida Haque; Kamlesh Khunti; Susan Michie; Tolullah Oni; Christina Pagel; Deenan Pillay; Steve Reicher; Helen Salisbury; Gabriel Scally; Kit Yates; Linda Bauld; Laura Bear; John Drury; Melissa Parker; Ann Phoenix; Elizabeth Stokoe; Robert West Journal: Health Policy Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 3.255