Nudging Public Health Behaviors to Prevent COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Health Communication Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2024.2317567
Chei Sian Lee, Kok Khiang Lim, Hye Kyung Kim
{"title":"Nudging Public Health Behaviors to Prevent COVID-19: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Chei Sian Lee, Kok Khiang Lim, Hye Kyung Kim","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2024.2317567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many countries have implemented strict preventive measures and mandatory policies to curb virus transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some have adopted softer approaches, such as nudge-based intervention, to influence public health behavior. This systematic review, conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, aims to determine if the nudge-based intervention can effectively influence people's preventive behavior during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The review indicated an overall positive outcome, but results were mixed as nudge-based interventions substantially depended on the situational context. While the review found that the nudging technique that presents and conveys decision-related information was essential to nudging people, a secondary nudge would often applied to deliver the interventions. In addition, there was no indication of an ideal nudge technique that would be effective in most situations. Conversely, our findings indicate that the nudge would likely suffer from habituation after repeated intervention or backfire due to inappropriate use of nudges. Also, the ceiling effect would inhibit any nudge influences regardless of the technique(s) used. In sum, the results and the applicability of nudge-based interventions were mixed, highlighting the need for further research to advance the theory and practical developments.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"3296-3307"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2317567","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many countries have implemented strict preventive measures and mandatory policies to curb virus transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some have adopted softer approaches, such as nudge-based intervention, to influence public health behavior. This systematic review, conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, aims to determine if the nudge-based intervention can effectively influence people's preventive behavior during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The review indicated an overall positive outcome, but results were mixed as nudge-based interventions substantially depended on the situational context. While the review found that the nudging technique that presents and conveys decision-related information was essential to nudging people, a secondary nudge would often applied to deliver the interventions. In addition, there was no indication of an ideal nudge technique that would be effective in most situations. Conversely, our findings indicate that the nudge would likely suffer from habituation after repeated intervention or backfire due to inappropriate use of nudges. Also, the ceiling effect would inhibit any nudge influences regardless of the technique(s) used. In sum, the results and the applicability of nudge-based interventions were mixed, highlighting the need for further research to advance the theory and practical developments.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
鼓励公共卫生行为以预防 COVID-19:系统回顾。
在 COVID-19 大流行期间,许多国家实施了严格的预防措施和强制性政策来遏制病毒传播。有些国家则采取了较为柔和的方法,如基于劝导的干预,来影响公众的健康行为。本系统综述遵循《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis,PRISMA)2020 指南,旨在确定在 COVID-19 大流行初期,基于劝导的干预是否能有效影响人们的预防行为。综述显示,总体结果是积极的,但由于基于劝导的干预措施在很大程度上取决于情景背景,因此结果喜忧参半。审查发现,提出和传达与决策有关的信息的劝导技术对劝导人们至关重要,但通常会采用辅助劝导来实施干预措施。此外,没有迹象表明有一种理想的劝导技术能够在大多数情况下都有效。相反,我们的研究结果表明,劝导很可能会在反复干预后出现习惯性失效,或因劝导使用不当而适得其反。此外,无论使用何种技术,天花板效应都会抑制任何劝导影响。总之,基于劝导的干预措施的结果和适用性好坏参半,这凸显了进一步研究以推进理论和实践发展的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.
期刊最新文献
Advancing the Integrative Theory of Communication Work: Developing and Validating a Measure of Communication Work Among U.S. Adults with Chronic Illnesses. The Impact of Healthcare Digitalization on Communication with Healthcare Providers: The Case of People Who are Hard of Hearing. Disclosing Sexual Dysfunction in Newly Established Romantic Relationships: An Experimental Test of Five Strategies from the Revelation Risk Model. Conspiracy Thinking, Conspiracy Beliefs, Denialism, Motivation, and COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions in Costa Rica. Cognitive Fatigue, Humor, and Physical Activity: A Field Experiment Testing Whether Humorous Messages Promote Walking in Cognitively Fatigued Individuals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1