与 COVID 相关的捂脸行为的心理和社会心理决定因素:系统综述。

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Campbell Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-07-20 DOI:10.1002/cl2.1422
Rachel Leonard, Sean R. O'Connor, Jennifer Hanratty, Ciara Keenan, Yuan Chi, Jenny Ferguson, Ariana Axiaq, Anna Volz, Ceri Welsh, Kerry Campbell, Victoria Hawkins, Sarah Miller, Declan Bradley, Martin Dempster
{"title":"与 COVID 相关的捂脸行为的心理和社会心理决定因素:系统综述。","authors":"Rachel Leonard,&nbsp;Sean R. O'Connor,&nbsp;Jennifer Hanratty,&nbsp;Ciara Keenan,&nbsp;Yuan Chi,&nbsp;Jenny Ferguson,&nbsp;Ariana Axiaq,&nbsp;Anna Volz,&nbsp;Ceri Welsh,&nbsp;Kerry Campbell,&nbsp;Victoria Hawkins,&nbsp;Sarah Miller,&nbsp;Declan Bradley,&nbsp;Martin Dempster","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is face covering. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of face covering.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to face covering aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development &amp; Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL &amp; Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with face covering, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full-text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\n \n <p>All data extraction was managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full-text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 23 were included in this review. The included studies were cross-sectional in design, came from nine countries and had a combined sample of 54,401 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with five of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of 10 of the studies was rated as unclear, 10 were rated as low, and 3 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and 16 in the narrative synthesis. Findings from the meta-analysis indicated that knowledge of COVID-19 (0.341, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06, 0.530, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 100%) was the malleable determinant most associated with face covering behaviour. Perceived susceptibility of COVID-19 (<i>r</i> = 0.088, 95% CI = −0.004, 0.180, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 80%) and COVID-related worry and anxiety (<i>r</i> = 0.064, 95% CI = −0.066, 0.191, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 93% had little to no effect on face covering behaviour. In the narrative synthesis, the strongest association was found between perceived benefits and effectiveness of behaviours and mask wearing behaviour.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID-related face covering can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote face covering behaviour in potential new waves of COVID-19 or other respiratory infections. Knowledge of COVID and perceived benefits of face coverings warrant further consideration in future research and policy.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11260276/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID related face covering behaviours: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Leonard,&nbsp;Sean R. O'Connor,&nbsp;Jennifer Hanratty,&nbsp;Ciara Keenan,&nbsp;Yuan Chi,&nbsp;Jenny Ferguson,&nbsp;Ariana Axiaq,&nbsp;Anna Volz,&nbsp;Ceri Welsh,&nbsp;Kerry Campbell,&nbsp;Victoria Hawkins,&nbsp;Sarah Miller,&nbsp;Declan Bradley,&nbsp;Martin Dempster\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cl2.1422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is face covering. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of face covering.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to face covering aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development &amp; Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL &amp; Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with face covering, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\\n \\n <p>Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full-text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\\n \\n <p>All data extraction was managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full-text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 23 were included in this review. The included studies were cross-sectional in design, came from nine countries and had a combined sample of 54,401 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with five of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of 10 of the studies was rated as unclear, 10 were rated as low, and 3 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and 16 in the narrative synthesis. Findings from the meta-analysis indicated that knowledge of COVID-19 (0.341, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06, 0.530, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 100%) was the malleable determinant most associated with face covering behaviour. Perceived susceptibility of COVID-19 (<i>r</i> = 0.088, 95% CI = −0.004, 0.180, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 80%) and COVID-related worry and anxiety (<i>r</i> = 0.064, 95% CI = −0.066, 0.191, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 93% had little to no effect on face covering behaviour. In the narrative synthesis, the strongest association was found between perceived benefits and effectiveness of behaviours and mask wearing behaviour.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID-related face covering can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote face covering behaviour in potential new waves of COVID-19 or other respiratory infections. Knowledge of COVID and perceived benefits of face coverings warrant further consideration in future research and policy.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"20 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11260276/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1422\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由 SARS-CoV-2 病毒引起的 COVID-19 大流行在全球范围内造成了疾病、死亡和社会混乱。社会已采取各种控制措施,以减少病毒传播并减轻其影响。个人行为的改变对这些措施的成功实施至关重要。通常推荐的一种限制感染风险的措施是遮盖面部。确定哪些因素可以预测面部遮盖的接受和维持情况非常重要:我们旨在确定并综合有关可塑的心理和社会心理因素的证据,这些因素决定了是否采取和坚持遮盖面部以降低 COVID-19 的感染或传播风险:我们搜索了各种文献来源,包括电子数据库(Medline ALL、儿童发展与青少年研究、ERIC、PsycInfo、CINAHL 和 Web of Science)、网络搜索、会议记录、政府报告、其他文献库和灰色文献。搜索策略围绕三个感兴趣的概念展开,包括:(1) 背景(与 COVID19 相关的术语);(2) 感兴趣的行为;(3) 与 COVID 健康相关行为的心理和社会心理决定因素相关的术语,以及坚持或遵守遮盖面部的行为,以捕捉可塑的决定因素。筛选标准:资格标准包括观察性研究(包括回顾性研究和前瞻性研究)和实验性研究,这些研究测量并报告了大众中个人层面的可塑性心理和社会心理决定因素以及洗手情况。筛选工作得到了 Cochrane Crowd 的支持。由三位独立筛选员根据资格标准对研究标题和摘要进行筛选。随后,研究小组对所有可能相关的研究进行全文筛选。筛选者之间的所有冲突均由核心研究团队讨论解决:所有数据提取均通过 EPPI-Reviewer 软件进行管理。通过全文筛选确定的所有符合条件的研究均由一位作者负责提取。我们提取了有关研究信息、人群、决定因素、行为和效果的数据。第二位作者检查了所有收录论文中 20% 的数据提取情况。所有冲突均由两位作者讨论,直至达成共识。我们使用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)针对横断面研究的质量评估工具的改编版对所有纳入研究的方法学质量进行了评估:我们的初步搜索结果为 23,587 项,其中 23 项被纳入本综述。所纳入的研究均为横断面研究,来自 9 个国家,共有 54,401 名参与者。绝大多数研究的样本都来自普通公众,其中有 5 项研究针对特定样本。所有纳入的研究都考虑了 18 岁以上的人群。其中 10 项研究的质量被评为不明确,10 项被评为低质量,3 项被评为高偏倚风险,主要是由于缺乏对招募、样本特征和方法的报告。10 项研究被纳入荟萃分析,16 项研究被纳入叙述性综述。荟萃分析结果表明,对 COVID-19 的了解程度(0.341,95% 置信区间 [CI] = 0.06,0.530,I 2 = 100%)是与遮盖面部行为最相关的可塑决定因素。COVID-19 的易感性(r = 0.088,95% CI = -0.004,0.180,I 2 = 80%)和 COVID 相关的担忧和焦虑(r = 0.064,95% CI = -0.066,0.191,I 2 = 93%)对遮盖面部行为几乎没有影响。在叙述性综述中,发现感知到的行为益处和有效性与戴面具行为之间的关联性最强:了解各种可塑决定因素对 COVID 相关遮面行为的影响有助于制定和实施干预措施和公共卫生运动,以促进 COVID-19 或其他呼吸道感染潜在新发病例中的遮面行为。在未来的研究和政策中,对 COVID 的了解以及对遮盖面部好处的认知值得进一步考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID related face covering behaviours: A systematic review

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is face covering. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of face covering.

Objectives

We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to face covering aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19.

Search Methods

We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL & Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with face covering, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021.

Selection Criteria

Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full-text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team.

Data Collection and Analysis

All data extraction was managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full-text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies.

Main Results

Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 23 were included in this review. The included studies were cross-sectional in design, came from nine countries and had a combined sample of 54,401 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with five of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of 10 of the studies was rated as unclear, 10 were rated as low, and 3 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and 16 in the narrative synthesis. Findings from the meta-analysis indicated that knowledge of COVID-19 (0.341, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06, 0.530, I2 = 100%) was the malleable determinant most associated with face covering behaviour. Perceived susceptibility of COVID-19 (r = 0.088, 95% CI = −0.004, 0.180, I2 = 80%) and COVID-related worry and anxiety (r = 0.064, 95% CI = −0.066, 0.191, I2 = 93% had little to no effect on face covering behaviour. In the narrative synthesis, the strongest association was found between perceived benefits and effectiveness of behaviours and mask wearing behaviour.

Authors' Conclusions

Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID-related face covering can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote face covering behaviour in potential new waves of COVID-19 or other respiratory infections. Knowledge of COVID and perceived benefits of face coverings warrant further consideration in future research and policy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Critical appraisal of methodological quality and completeness of reporting in Chinese social science systematic reviews with meta-analysis: A systematic review. The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing problematic substance use, mental ill health, and housing instability in people experiencing homelessness in high income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Exposure to hate in online and traditional media: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities. PROTOCOL: Non-criminal justice interventions for countering cognitive and behavioural radicalisation amongst children and adolescents: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation. Protocol: The impact of integrated thematic instruction model on primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching: A protocol of systematic review.
×
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