Top

BMC Public Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | COVID-19 | Research article

Factors associated with non-adherence to social distancing rules during the COVID-19 pandemic: a logistic regression analysis

Authors: Stephen Hills, Yolanda Eraso

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

On March 23, 2020, the government of the United Kingdom told the British people to stay home, an unprecedented request designed to limit the spread of the COVID-19 virus and stop the National Health Service from being overwhelmed.

Methods

This study undertook a cross-sectional design to survey a convenience sample of 681 residents of North London on their social distancing (SD) behaviours, demographics, housing situation, politics, psychology and social support using an online questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to measure the associations between these explanatory factors and non-adherence to all SD rules and intentional non-adherence to SD rules.

Results

The vast majority (92.8%) of participants did not adhere to all SD rules and nearly half (48.6%) engaged in intentional non-adherence of rules. The odds of not adhering to all SD rules increased if a participant was not identified as highly vulnerable to COVID-19 [OR = 4.5], had lower control over others’ distancing [OR = .724], had lower control over responsibilities for which coming into contact with others was unavoidable [OR = .642], and if SD behaviours were reported after lockdown was first relaxed [OR = .261]. The odds of intentionally not adhering to SD rules increased if a participant had a lower intention to socially distance [OR = .468], had lower control over others’ distancing [OR = .829], had a doctoral degree compared to a master’s degree [OR = .332], a professional qualification [OR = .307], a bachelor’s degree [OR = .361] or work-related qualification [OR = .174], voted for the UK Government compared to not voting for the Government [OR = .461], perceived higher normative pressure from neighbours [OR = 1.121] and had greater support from friends [OR = 1.465].

Conclusions

Non-adherence to all SD rules had a stronger association with vulnerability to COVID-19 and control over SD, whereas intentional non-adherence had a stronger association with intention and anti-social psychological factors. It is recommended that people living in high-risk environments, such as those living in houses of multiple occupancy, should be specially supported when asked to stay at home, and public health messaging should emphasise shared responsibility and public consciousness.

Available only for authorised users

Shereen MA, Khan S, Kazmi A, Bashir N, Siddique R. COVID-19 infection: origin, transmission, and characteristics of human coronaviruses. J Adv Res. 2020;24:91–8.CrossRef

Ferguson N, Laydon D, Gilani GN, Imai N. Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand. 2020. Available from: https://dsprdpub.cc.ic.ac.uk:8443/handle/10044/1/77482 [cited 2020 Aug 26]

Public Health England. Guidance on social distancing for everyone in the UK - GOV.UK. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-on-social-distancing-and-for-vulnerable-people/guidance-on-social-distancing-for-everyone-in-the-uk-and-protecting-older-people-and-vulnerable-adults. [cited 2020 Sep 15].

The Health Protection Regulations 2020. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

Setti L, Passarini F, De Gennaro G, Barbieri P, Perrone MG, Borelli M, et al. Airborne transmission route of covid-19: Why 2 meters/6 feet of inter-personal distance could not be enough. Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2020 17. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32340347/. MDPI AG [cited 2021 Jan 4]

Nissen K, Krambrich J, Akaberi D, Hoffman T, Ling J, Lundkvist Å, et al. Long-distance airborne dispersal of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 wards. Sci Rep. 2020;10:19589. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33177563/. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76442-2. [cited 2021 Jan 4].

Public Health England. Daily summary | Coronavirus in the UK [Internet] Available from: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/. [cited 2021 Jan 4].

Brauner JM, Mindermann S, Sharma M, Johnston D, Salvatier J, Gavenčiak T, et al. Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19. Science (80- ). 2020;eabd9338. Available from: https://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.abd9338 [cited 2021 Jan 8]

Cabinet Office. Staying alert and safe - GOV.UK. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/staying-alert-and-safe-social-distancing/staying-alert-and-safe-social-distancing-after-4-july. [cited 2020 Sep 15]

10.

Independent SAGE. COVID-19: what are the options for the UK? Recommendations for government based on an open and transparent examination of the scientific evidence The Independent SAGE Report Additional contributions from. 2020. Available from: www.independentSAGE.org [cited 2020 Sep 1].

11.

Google. COVID-19 Community Mobility Report. 2020. Available from: https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-05-16_GB_Mobility_Report_en-GB.pdf [cited 2020 May 22]

12.

HM Government. Social distancing: Changes in transport use (Great Britain). 2020. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886474/2020-05-20_COVID-19_Press_Conference_Slides.pdf#page=4 [cited 2020 Sep 15]

13.

Cowling BJ, Ng DMW, Ip DKM, Liao Q, Lam WWT, Wu JT, et al. Community psychological and behavioral responses through the first wave of the 2009 influenza a(H1N1) pandemic in Hong Kong. J Infect Dis. 2010;202(6):867–76.CrossRef

14.

Lin L, Savoia E, Agboola F, Viswanath K. What have we learned about communication inequalities during the H1N1 pandemic: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1–13.CrossRef

15.

Wirz C, Schwakopf J, Brossard D, Preprints LDB-O, 2020 U. Self-reported compliance and attitudes about social distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak. 2020. Available from: https://osf.io/bv28d/ [cited 2020 Sep 15]

16.

Honarvar B, Lankarani KB, Kharmandar A, Shaygani F, Zahedroozgar M, Rahmanian Haghighi MR, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, risk perceptions, and practices of adults toward COVID-19: a population and field-based study from Iran. Int J Public Health. 2020;65:731–9.CrossRef

17.

Bish A, Michie S. Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: a review. Br J Health Psychol. 2010;15(4):797–824.CrossRef

18.

Office for National Statistics. Coronavirus (COVID-19) related deaths by ethnic group, England and Wales. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/coronaviruscovid19relateddeathsbyethnicgroupenglandandwales/2march2020to15may2020. [cited 2020 Aug 26]

19.

Public Health England. Beyond the Data: Understanding the Impact of COVID-19 on BAME Communities. 2020. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/892376/COVID_stakeholder_engagement_synthesis_beyond_the_data.pdf [cited 2020 Sep 17]

20.

Rubin GJ, Amlôt R, Page L, Wessely S. Public perceptions, anxiety, and behaviour change in relation to the swine flu outbreak: cross sectional telephone survey. BMJ. 2009;339(7713).

21.

Raisi-Estabragh Z, McCracken C, Bethell MS, Cooper J, Cooper C, Caulfield MJ, et al. Greater risk of severe COVID-19 in black, Asian and minority ethnic populations is not explained by cardiometabolic, socioeconomic or behavioural factors, or by 25(OH)-vitamin D status: study of 1326 cases from the UK biobank. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2020;42(3):451–60.CrossRef

22.

Yilmazkuday H. COVID-19 and unequal social distancing across demographic groups. Reg Sci Policy Pract. 2020;12(6):1235–48.CrossRef

23.

Liao Q, Cowling B, Lam WT, Ng MW, Fielding R. Situational Awareness and Health Protective Responses to Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) in Hong Kong: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS One. 2010;5(10):e13350. Ng LFP, editor.

24.

van der Weerd W, Timmermans DR, Beaujean DJ, Oudhoff J, van Steenbergen JE. Monitoring the level of government trust, risk perception and intention of the general public to adopt protective measures during the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):1–2.CrossRef

25.

Prati G, Pietrantoni L, Zani B. Compliance with recommendations for pandemic influenza H1N1 2009: the role of trust and personal beliefs. Health Educ Res. 2011;26(5):761–9.CrossRef

26.

Sharifirad G, Yarmohammadi P, Sharifabad MA, Rahaei Z. Determination of preventive behaviors for pandemic influenza A/H1N1 based on protection motivation theory among female high school students in Isfahan, Iran. J Educ Health Promot. 2014;3:7. Published online 2014 Feb 21. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9531.127556.

27.

Oosterhoff B, Palmer C. Psychological Correlates of News Monitoring, Social Distancing, Disinfecting, and Hoarding Behaviors among US Adolescents during the COVID-19 Pandemic. PsyArXiv; 2020. Available from: https://psyarxiv.com/rpcy4/ [cited 2020 Aug 26].

28.

Teasdale E, Yardley L. Understanding responses to government health recommendations: public perceptions of government advice for managing the H1N1 (swine flu) influenza pandemic. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(3):413–8.CrossRef

29.

Aburto N, Pevzner E, RL-R-A journal of, 2010 U. Knowledge and adoption of community mitigation efforts in Mexico during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Am J Prev Med. 2010;39(5):395–402.CrossRef

30.

Zhong BL, Luo W, Li HM, Zhang QQ, Liu XG, Li WT, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among chinese residents during the rapid rise period of the COVID-19 outbreak: a quick online cross-sectional survey. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16(10):1745–52.CrossRef

31.

Kooistra EB, Folmer CR, Kuiper ME, Malouke Esra and Olthuis E, Brownlee M, Fine A, van Rooij B. Mitigating COVID-19 in a Nationally Representative UK Sample: Personal Abilities and Obligation to Obey the Law Shape Compliance with Mitigation Measures (May 11, 2020). Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2020-19, General Subserie Research Paper No. 2020-01. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3598221 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3598221.

32.

Davis MDM, Stephenson N, Lohm D, Waller E, Flowers P. Beyond resistance: social factors in the general public response to pandemic influenza. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1).

33.

Andersen M. Early Evidence on Social Distancing in Response to COVID-19 in the United States. 2020. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3569368 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3569368.

34.

Barrios JM, Hochberg Y V. Risk Perception Through the Lens of Politics in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic RISK. 2020. Available from: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27008 [cited 2020 Aug 26]

35.

Painter M, Qiu T. Political Beliefs affect Compliance with COVID-19 Social Distancing Orders (July 3, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3569098 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3569098.

36.

Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude Change1. J Psychol. 1975;91(1):93–114.CrossRef

37.

Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Action control: from cognition to behavior. Berlin: Springer; 1985. p. 11–39.CrossRef

38.

Mcleroy K, Bibeau DL, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecology perspective on Health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(4):351–77.CrossRef

39.

Horne R, Weinman J, Barber N, Elliott R, Morgan M. Concordance, adherence and compliance in medicine taking. 2005. Available from: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48441294/Concordance_Adherence_and_Compliance_in_20160830-5901-19sk9e2.pdf?1472573380=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConcordance_adherence_and_compliance_in.pdf&Expires=1600374802&Signature=RiDVScR [cited 2020 Sep 15]

40.

Office for National Statistics. All data related to Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: mid-2018. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2018/relateddata. [cited 2020 Sep 16]

41.

Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1963.

42.

JISC. Online surveys. Available from: https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/. [cited 2020 Sep 16]

43.

Office for National Statistics. Testing the census. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/censustransformationprogramme/testingthecensus. [cited 2020 Aug 26]

44.

Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government. English indices of deprivation 2019: Postcode Lookup. Available from: http://imd-by-postcode.opendatacommunities.org/imd/2019. [cited 2020 Aug 26]

45.

Gregory TA, Wilson C, Duncan A, Turnbull D, Cole SR, Young G. Demographic, social cognitive and social ecological predictors of intention and participation in screening for colorectal cancer. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):1.CrossRef

46.

Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5.CrossRef

47.

Francis JJ, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw J, Foy R, et al. Theory of Planned Behaviour Questionnaires: Manual for Researchers. 2004.

48.

Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess. 1988;52(1):30–41.CrossRef

49.

Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E. The Effects of Response Rate Changes on the Index of Consumer Sentiment. Public Opin Q. 2000;64(4):413–428. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-lookup/doi/10.1086/318638 [cited 2021 Jan 3]

50.

Singer E, Van Hoewyk J, Maher MP. Experiments with Incentives in Telephone Surveys. Public Opin Q. 2000;64(2):171–188. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-lookup/doi/10.1086/317761 [cited 2021 Jan 3]

51.

Moore DL, Tarnai J. Evaluating nonresponse error in mail surveys. In: Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, Little RJA, editors. Survey Nonresponse. New York: Wiley; 2002. p. 197–211.

52.

Smith G. Does gender influence online survey participation?: A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. scholarworks.sjsu.edu. 2008. Available from: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/elementary_ed_pub [cited 2021 Jan 3]

53.

Tu SH, Liao PS. Social distance, respondent cooperation and item nonresponse in sex survey. Qual Quant. 2007;41(2):177–199. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11135-007-9088-0 [cited 2021 Jan 3]

54.

Office for National Statistics. Regional ethnic diversity - GOV.UK Ethnicity facts and figures. 2020. Available from: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/regional-ethnic-diversity/latest [cited 2021 Jan 3]

55.

Kim HJ, Fredriksen-Goldsen KI. Nonresponse to a question on self-identified sexual orientation in a public health survey and its relationship to race and ethnicity, Am J Public Health; 2013 103. p. 67–69. Available from: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/. American Public Health Association [cited 2021 Jan 3]

56.

Ahlmark N, Algren MH, Holmberg T, Norredam ML, Nielsen SS, Blom AB, et al. Survey nonresponse among ethnic minorities in a national health survey- A mixed-method study of participation, barriers, and potentials.Ethn Health; 2015 20. p. 611–632. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13557858.2014.979768. Routledge [cited 2021 Jan 3]

57.

Treweek S, Forouhi NG, Narayan KMV, Khunti K. COVID-19 and ethnicity: who will research results apply to? Lancet. 2020;395:1955–7 Lancet Publishing Group.CrossRef

58.

Smith LE, Amlôt R, Lambert H, Oliver I, Robin C, Yardley L, et al. Factors associated with adherence to self-isolation and lockdown measures in the UK; a cross-sectional survey. Public Health. 2020;187:41–52.CrossRef

59.

Harper CA, Satchell LP, Fido D, Latzman RD. Functional fear predicts public health compliance in the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2020:1-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00281-5.

60.

Wang C, Chudzicka-Czupała A, Grabowski D, Pan R, Adamus K, Wan X, et al. The Association Between Physical and Mental Health and Face Mask Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of Two Countries With Different Views and Practices. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:569981. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.569981/full [cited 2021 Jan 5]

61.

Jones NR, Qureshi ZU, Temple RJ, Larwood JPJ, Greenhalgh T, Bourouiba L. Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19? BMJ. 2020;370:m3223. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3223http://www.bmj.com/ [cited 2021 Jan 8]

62.

Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020;395(10227):912–20.CrossRef

63.

Pfattheicher S, Nockur L, Böhm R, Sassenrath C, Petersen MB. The emotional path to action: Empathy promotes physical distancing and wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2020. Available from: https://psyarxiv.com/y2cg5/ [cited 2020 Sep 15]

64.

Suppes P. On an example of unpredictability in human behavior. Philos Sci. 1964 Apr 22;31(2):143–8.CrossRef

65.

Cziko GA. Unpredictability and indeterminism in human behavior: arguments and implications for educational research. Educ Res. 1989;18(3):17–25.CrossRef

66.

Hill EM, Ross LT, Low BS. The role of future unpredictability in human risk-taking. Hum Nat. 1997;8(4):287–325.CrossRef

67.

Spencer SJ, Josephs RA, Steele CM. Low self-esteem: the uphill struggle for self-integrity. In: Baumeister RF, editor. Self-esteem: the puzzle of Low self-regard. New York: Plenum Press; 1993. p. 21–36.CrossRef

Title: Factors associated with non-adherence to social distancing rules during the COVID-19 pandemic: a logistic regression analysis
Authors: Stephen Hills
Yolanda Eraso
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: COVID-19
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10379-7

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Factors associated with non-adherence to social distancing rules during the COVID-19 pandemic: a logistic regression analysis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Behavioral impact of national health campaigns on healthy lifestyle practices among young adults in Singapore: a cross-sectional study

Provider attitudes towards a brief behavioral intervention for sexual health in Moldova

The future of STI screening and treatment for youth: a National Survey of youth perspectives and intentions

Factors impacting test-based management of suspected malaria among caregivers of febrile children and private medicine retailers within rural communities of Fanteakwa North District, Ghana

‘Listen and learn:’ participant input in program planning for a low-income urban population at cardiovascular risk

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) toward COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in South Korea