Top

Trials

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | COVID-19 | Study protocol

Mental imagery interventions to promote face covering use among UK university students and employees during the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Author: Dominic Conroy

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has witnessed wide-ranging efforts to minimize the spread of the virus and to protect those most vulnerable to becoming unwell following viral infection. Core COVID-19 preventive measures include social distancing, regular hand washing, and wearing face coverings in public places. Understanding links between social cognitive factors relating to beliefs/skills is important in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, as this can suggest which factors might be targeted via behaviour change interventions to promote adherence to COVID-19 preventative behaviours. In this context, mental imagery exercises—self-directed imagining of an anticipated outcome or processes linked to a defined behaviour/activity—offer a well-evidenced, relatively simple behaviour change intervention. In the mental imagery invention reported in this protocol, individuals will be randomly assigned to one of four separate conditions (outcome imagery, process imagery, outcome and process imagery, control).

Methods

The primary objective of this randomized controlled study is to assess the effectiveness of a mental imagery intervention on wearing face coverings, as a defined core COVID-19 preventative behaviour. Participants will consist of UK university students and university employees of any age. Participants will be randomized to complete an ‘outcome imagery’ or a ‘process imagery’ exercise, both exercises (i.e. a combined condition) or neither exercise (i.e. a control condition). A total of 260 individuals will be recruited into the study. Outcomes for all study condition arms will be assessed at baseline (Time 1), immediately post-intervention (Time 2), and at 1-month follow-up (Time 3).

The primary outcome is frequency of wearing face covering, as reported at T2 and T3. Secondary outcomes include intervention effects on face covering attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioural control and barrier self-efficacy at T2 and T3. Putative moderators of intervention effects are conscientiousness, narcissism and ‘light triad’ personality traits.

Discussion

This trial will contribute toward the currently sparse evidence base concerning behaviour change techniques designed to promote COVID-19 preventative behaviours among UK university students and university employees.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (U.S. National Library of Medicine) NCT04583449. Retrospectively registered on 20 October 2020.

Available only for authorised users

Breakwell GM, Fino E, Jaspal R. The COVID-19 Preventive Behaviors Index: development and validation in two samples from the United Kingdom. Eval Health Prof. 2020;44(1):77–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278720983416.CrossRef

Greenhalgh T. Face coverings for the public: laying straw men to rest. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;e13415.

Martin GP, Hanna E, McCartney M, Dingwall R. Science, society, and policy in the face of uncertainty: reflections on the debate around face coverings for the public during COVID-19. Crit Public Health. 2020;30(5):501–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2020.1797997.CrossRef

Asadi S, Cappa CD, Barreda S, Wexler AS, Bouvier NM, Ristenpart WD. Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):15665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72798-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Greenhalgh T, Schmid MB, Czypionka T, Bassler D, Gruer L. Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis. BMJ. 2020;369:m1435. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1435.CrossRefPubMed

Howard J, Huang A, Li Z, Tufekci Z, Zdimal V, van der Westhuizen H et al. Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review. [Preprint]. 2020; doi:10.1073/pnas.2014564118.

Lyu W, Wehby GL. Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US: study examines impact on COVID-19 growth rates associated with state government mandates requiring face mask use in public. Health Aff. 2020;39(8):1419–25. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818.CrossRef

UK Government Cabinet Office. Face coverings: when to wear one and how to make your own. In: Rules and restrictions during coronavirus. UK Government Cabinet Office. 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own#:~:text=In%20England%2C%20you%20must%20wear,and%20coach%20stations%20and%20terminals). Accessed 3 August 2020.

Cypryańska M, Nezlek JB. Anxiety as a mediator of relationships between perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 and coping behaviors during the onset of the pandemic in Poland. PloS One. 2020;15(10):e0241464. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241464.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Pakpour AH, Griffiths MD. The fear of COVID-19 and its role in preventive behaviors. J Concurrent Disorders. 2020;2:58–63.CrossRef

11.

Rad RE, Mohseni S, Takhti HK, Azad MH, Shahabi N, Aghamolaei T et al. (2020). Predicting COVID-19 Preventive Behaviors based on Protection Motivation Theory in Hormozgan, Iran. [Preprint] 2020; doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-82943/v1.

12.

Elhadi M, Msherghi A, Alsoufi A, Buzreg A, Bouhuwaish A, Khaled A, et al. Knowledge, preventive behavior and risk perception regarding COVID-19: a self-reported study on college students. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;2(35):75.

13.

Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Worth Publishing; 1997.

14.

Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2011. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838020.CrossRef

15.

Lin CY, Imani V, Majd NR, Ghasemi Z, Griffiths MD, Hamilton K. Using an integrated social cognition model to predict COVID-19 preventive behaviours. Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25(4):981–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12465.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Chan DK, Zhang CQ, Josefsson KW. Why people failed to adhere to COVID-19 preventive behaviors? Perspectives from an integrated behavior change model. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020;42(3):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2020.245.CrossRef

17.

Raude J, Lecrique JM, Lasbeur L, Leon C, Guignard R, Du Roscoät E, et al. Determinants of preventive behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in France: comparing the sociocultural, psychosocial, and social cognitive explanations. Frontiers Psychol. 2020;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584500.

18.

Hacquin AS, Mercier H, Chevallier C. Improving preventive health behaviors in the COVID-19 crisis: a messaging intervention in a large nationally representative sample. [Preprint] 2020; doi:10.31234/osf.io/nyvmg.

19.

Conroy D, Hagger MS. Imagery interventions in health behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2018;37(7):668–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000625.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Goldberg LR. An alternative “description of personality”: the big-five factor structure. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;59:1216-1229, An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure, 6, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.

21.

Kaufman SB, Yaden DB, Hyde E, Tsukayama E. The Light vs. Dark Triad of Personality: Contrasting Two Very Different Profiles of Human Nature. The light vs. dark triad of personality: contrasting two very different profiles of human nature. Frontiers Psychol. 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00467.

22.

Ames DR, Rose P, Anderson CP. The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. J Res Pers. 2006;40(4):440–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002.CrossRef

23.

Hagger MS, Conroy D. Imagery, visualization, and mental simulation interventions. In: Hagger MS, Cameron LD, Hamilton K, Hankonen N, Lintunen T, editors. The Handbook of Behavior Change. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press; 2020. p. 479–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.033.CrossRef

24.

Andrade J, Khalil M, Dickson J, May J, Kavanagh DJ. Functional Imagery Training to reduce snacking: Testing a novel motivational intervention based on Elaborated Intrusion theory. Appetite. 2016;100:256–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.015.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Conroy D, Sparks P, de Visser R. Efficacy of a non-drinking mental simulation intervention for reducing student alcohol consumption. Br J Health Psychol. 2015;20(4):688–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12133.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013a;346(jan08 15):e7586. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7586.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013b;158(3):200–7. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Tatlow H, Cameron-Blake E, Grewal S, Hale T, Phillips T, Wood A. (2021). Variation in the response to COVID-19 across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. Accessed 3rd October 2021. https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-04/BSG-WP-2020-035-v2.0.pdf

29.

UK Government. Cases in United Kingdom. In: Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK. 2021. UK Government. Retrieved 11 Oct 2021 from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

30.

UK Government. Healthcare in United Kingdom. In: Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK. 2021. UK Government. Retrieved 11 Oct 2021 from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

31.

UK Government. Deaths in United Kingdom. In: Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK. 2021. UK Government. Retrieved 11 Oct 2021 from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

32.

Fisher KA. Factors associated with cloth face covering use among adults during the COVID-19 pandemic—United States, April and May 2020. MMWR. 2020;69(28):933–7. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6928e3.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.CrossRef

34.

Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol health. 1998;13(4):623–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449808407422.CrossRef

35.

Conn VS. Older women: Social cognitive theory correlates of health behavior. Women Health. 1998;26(3):71–85. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v26n03_05.CrossRef

36.

Prati G, Pietrantoni L, Zani B. A social-cognitive model of pandemic influenza H1N1 risk perception and recommended behaviors in Italy. Int J. 2011;31(4):645–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01529.x.CrossRef

37.

Liao Q, Cowling BJ, Lam WWT, Fielding R. Factors affecting intention to receive and self-reported receipt of 2009 pandemic (H1N1) vaccine in Hong Kong: a longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):e17713. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017713.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Ajzen I. Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. 2006. https://www.midss.org/content/theory-planned-behaviour-questionnaire. .

39.

Hamilton K, Keech JJ, Peden AE, Hagger MS. Protocol for developing a mental imagery intervention: a randomised controlled trial testing a novel implementation imagery e-health intervention to change driver behaviour during floods. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e025565. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025565.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urdan T, editors. Self-Efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing; 2006. p. 307–37.

41.

Knäuper B, McCollam A, Rosen-Brown A, Lacaille J, Kelso E, Roseman M. Fruitful plans: Adding targeted mental imagery to implementation intentions increases fruit consumption. Psychol Health. 2011;26(5):601–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870441003703218.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Schroder HS, Dawood S, Yalch MM, Donnellan MB, Moser JS. Evaluating the domain specificity of mental health–related mind-sets. Soc Psychol Pers Sci. 2016;7(6):508–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616644657.CrossRef

43.

Maniaci MR, Rogge RD. Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. J Res Pers. 2014;48:61–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008.CrossRef

44.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRef

45.

Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet. 2002;359(9308):781–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07882-0.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Akl EA, Briel M, You JJ, Sun X, Johnston BC, Busse JW, et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344(may18 1):e2809. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2809.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Bell ML, Kenward MG, Fairclough DL, Horton NJ. Differential dropout and bias in randomised controlled trials: when it matters and when it may not. BMJ. 2013;346(jan21 1):e8668. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8668.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

McCoy CE. Understanding the intention-to-treat principle in randomized controlled trials. Western J Emergen Med. 2017;18(6):1075–8. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.8.35985.CrossRef

49.

Office for National Statistics. Why have Black and South Asian people been hit hardest by COVID-19? 2020. Retrieved 11 Nov 2021 from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/whyhaveblackandsouthasianpeoplebeenhithardestbycovid19/2020-12-14

50.

Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours. Increasing adherence to COVID-19 preventative behaviours among young people. 2020. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/933228/S0829_SPI-B_-_Increasing_adherence_to_Covid-19_preventative_behaviours_among_young_people.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2021.

51.

Pham LB, Taylor SE. From thought to action: Effects of process-versus outcome-based mental simulations on performance. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1999;25(2):250–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025002010.CrossRef

52.

Driskell JE, Copper C, Moran A. Does mental practice enhance performance? J Applied Psychol. 1994;79(4):481–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.481.CrossRef

53.

Gollwitzer PM, Sheeran P. Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2006;1:69–119.CrossRef

54.

Gleeson-Kreig JM. Self-monitoring of physical activity. Diabetes Educ. 2006;32(1):69–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721705284285.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Gibbons FX, Buunk BP. Individual differences in social comparison: development of a scale of social comparison orientation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;76(1):129–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Abraham C, Michie S. A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol. 2008;27(3):379–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.379.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Michie S, West R. Behavioural, environmental, social, and systems interventions against covid-19. 2020;28:m2982.

58.

Van Bavel JJ, Baicker K, Boggio PS, Capraro V, Cichocka A, Cikara M, et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4(5):460–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Atchison CJ, Bowman L, Vrinten C, Redd R, Pristera P, Eaton JW, et al. Perceptions and behavioural responses of the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey of UK Adults. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e043577. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043577.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Mental imagery interventions to promote face covering use among UK university students and employees during the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Author: Dominic Conroy
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: COVID-19
Published in: Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05852-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Mental imagery interventions to promote face covering use among UK university students and employees during the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Effects of Jianpi Lishi Jiedu granules on colorectal adenoma patients after endoscopic treatment: study protocol for a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Evaluation of the safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccine combinations in healthy individuals: study protocol for a randomized, subject-blinded, controlled phase 3 trial [PRIBIVAC]

Face Your Fears: Virtual reality-based cognitive behavioral therapy (VR-CBT) versus standard CBT for paranoid ideations in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a randomized clinical trial

Integration of smoking cessation into standard treatment for patients receiving opioid agonist therapy who are smoking tobacco: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ATLAS4LAR)

Effect of first dorsal interosseous strengthening on clinical outcomes in patients with thumb osteoarthritis: a study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

An international, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized trial investigating the 0/1-h algorithm in suspected acute coronary syndrome in Asia: the rational of the DROP-Asian ACS study