Interventions to promote physical distancing behaviour during infectious disease pandemics or epidemics: A systematic review

Epton, Tracy, Ghio, Daniela, Ballard, Lisa M., Allen, Sarah, Kassianos, Angelos P., Hewitt, Rachael, Swainston, Katherine, Fynn, Wendy Irene, Rowland, Vickie, Westbrook, Juliette, Jenkinson, Elizabeth, Morrow, Alison, McGeechan, Grant J., Stanescu, Sabina, Yousuf, Aysha A., Sharma, Nisha, Begum, Suhana, Karasouli, Eleni, Scanlan, Daniel, Shorter, Gillian W., Arden, Madelynne A., Armitage, Christopher J., O'Connor, Daryl B., Kamal, Atiya, McBride, Emily, Swanson, Vivien, Hart, Jo, Byrne-Davis, Lucie, Chater, Angel and Drury, John (2022) Interventions to promote physical distancing behaviour during infectious disease pandemics or epidemics: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 303. p. 114946. ISSN 0277-9536

[img]
Preview
Text
1-s2.0-S0277953622002520-main.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

Download (945kB) | Preview
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114946

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Physical distancing, defined as keeping 1-2m apart when co-located, can prevent cases of droplet or aerosol transmitted infectious diseases such as SARS-CoV2. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distancing was a recommendation or a requirement in many countries. This systematic review aimed to determine which interventions and behavior change techniques (BCTs) are effective in promoting adherence to distancing and through which potential mechanisms of action (MOAs).

METHODS: Six databases were searched. The review included studies that were (a) conducted on humans, (b) reported physical distancing interventions, (c) included any comparator (e.g., pre-intervention versus post-intervention; randomized controlled trial), and (d) reported actual distancing or predictors of distancing behavior. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. BCTs and potential MoAs were identified in each intervention.

RESULTS: Six articles (with seven studies and 19 comparisons) indicated that distancing interventions could successfully change MoAs and behavior. Successful BCTs (MoAs) included feedback on behavior (e.g., motivation); information about health consequences, salience of health consequences (e.g., beliefs about consequences), demonstration (e.g., beliefs about capabilities), and restructuring the physical environment (e.g., environmental context and resources). The most promising interventions were proximity buzzers, directional systems, and posters with loss-framed messages that demonstrated the behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates several BCTs and potential MoAs that should be targeted in interventions and highlights gaps that should be the focus of future research.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: Funding Information: This review received no funding. The work of John Drury on this paper was supported by a grant from the ESRC (reference number ES/V005383/1 ). The work of Christopher Armitage on this paper was supported by NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre.
Uncontrolled Keywords: COVID-19, Physical distancing, Social distancing, Systematic review
Subjects: A300 Clinical Medicine
A900 Others in Medicine and Dentistry
C800 Psychology
Department: Faculties > Health and Life Sciences > Psychology
Depositing User: Rachel Branson
Date Deposited: 16 Aug 2022 14:28
Last Modified: 16 Aug 2022 14:30
URI: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/49879

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics