COVID 相关疏远行为的心理和社会心理决定因素:系统回顾

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Campbell Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-10-06 DOI:10.1002/cl2.1442
Jennifer Hanratty, Rachel Leonard, Sean R. O'Connor, Ciara Keenan, Yuan Chi, Janet Ferguson, Ariana Axiaq, Anna Volz, Ceri Welsh, Kerry Campbell, Victoria Hawkins, Sarah Miller, Declan Bradley, Martin Dempster
{"title":"COVID 相关疏远行为的心理和社会心理决定因素:系统回顾","authors":"Jennifer Hanratty,&nbsp;Rachel Leonard,&nbsp;Sean R. O'Connor,&nbsp;Ciara Keenan,&nbsp;Yuan Chi,&nbsp;Janet 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/cl2.1442","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 distancing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of distancing.</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 distancing 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 COVID-19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with distancing, 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 distancing (social and/or physical) at an individual level, amongst the general public. We defined physical distancing as, maintaining the recommended distance from others when physically present. And social distancing being defined as, minimising social contact with those outside of your own household. 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 91 studies were suitable for inclusion in the review, representing 199,604 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with 15 of the studies focusing on specific samples. The majority of studies included participants over 18 years old, with 5 reporting on specific ages (adolescents and adults over 65). The quality of 29 of the studies was rated as unclear, 48 were rated as low, and 14 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Overall the majority of these relationships were weak. Stronger relationships were observed between attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioural control and both social and physical distancing. And between worry, response effectiveness, self-efficacy and social distancing. However, there is a high level of heterogeneity in the findings. This heterogeneity might be, partly, due to the differences in measurement of the determinants and distancing across studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The findings from this review indicate that social distancing behaviours are more likely to be undertaken by people who are worried about COVID-19 and who believe that social distancing is an effective way of avoiding COVID-19. Physical distancing behaviours are more likely to be undertaken by those who believe that they can control physical distancing from others, who believe that physical distancing is the social norm and who have a positive attitude to engaging in this behaviour. It is important to understand how to strengthen these behavioural determinants to develop effective interventions to promote distancing behaviours in any potential future waves of COVID-19, and other respiratory infections.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1442","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID related distancing behaviours: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Hanratty,&nbsp;Rachel Leonard,&nbsp;Sean R. O'Connor,&nbsp;Ciara Keenan,&nbsp;Yuan Chi,&nbsp;Janet 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/cl2.1442\",\"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 distancing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of distancing.</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 distancing 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 COVID-19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with distancing, 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 distancing (social and/or physical) at an individual level, amongst the general public. We defined physical distancing as, maintaining the recommended distance from others when physically present. And social distancing being defined as, minimising social contact with those outside of your own household. 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 91 studies were suitable for inclusion in the review, representing 199,604 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with 15 of the studies focusing on specific samples. The majority of studies included participants over 18 years old, with 5 reporting on specific ages (adolescents and adults over 65). The quality of 29 of the studies was rated as unclear, 48 were rated as low, and 14 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Overall the majority of these relationships were weak. Stronger relationships were observed between attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioural control and both social and physical distancing. And between worry, response effectiveness, self-efficacy and social distancing. However, there is a high level of heterogeneity in the findings. This heterogeneity might be, partly, due to the differences in measurement of the determinants and distancing across studies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The findings from this review indicate that social distancing behaviours are more likely to be undertaken by people who are worried about COVID-19 and who believe that social distancing is an effective way of avoiding COVID-19. Physical distancing behaviours are more likely to be undertaken by those who believe that they can control physical distancing from others, who believe that physical distancing is the social norm and who have a positive attitude to engaging in this behaviour. It is important to understand how to strengthen these behavioural determinants to develop effective interventions to promote distancing behaviours in any potential future waves of COVID-19, and other respiratory infections.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1442\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1442\",\"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/cl2.1442","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。通常建议采取的一项限制感染风险的措施是保持距离。重要的是要确定那些可以预测采取和保持距离的因素。 目的 我们旨在确定并综合有关可塑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旨在降低 COVID-19 感染或传播风险的疏远措施。 检索方法 我们检索了各种文献来源,包括电子数据库(Medline ALL、Child Development &amp; Adolescent Studies、ERIC、PsycInfo、CINAHL &amp; Web of Science)、网络检索、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 COVID-19 相关的术语);(2) 感兴趣的行为;(3) 与 COVID-19 健康相关行为的心理和社会心理决定因素以及坚持或遵守疏远相关的术语,以捕捉可塑的决定因素。搜索涵盖截至 2021 年 10 月的研究。 选择标准 资格标准包括观察性研究(包括回顾性和前瞻性研究)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疏远(社会和/或物理)。我们将身体上的疏远定义为:在身体上与他人保持建议的距离。社会疏远的定义是:尽量减少与自己家庭以外的人的社会接触。筛选工作得到了 Cochrane Crowd 的支持。由三名独立筛选员根据资格标准对研究的标题和摘要进行筛选。随后,研究团队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。 数据收集与分析 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。 主要结果 共有 91 项研究适合纳入综述,代表了 199 604 名参与者。绝大多数研究的样本来自普通公众,其中 15 项研究关注特定样本。大多数研究的参与者年龄在 18 岁以上,其中 5 项研究报告了特定年龄段(青少年和 65 岁以上的成年人)。29 项研究的质量被评为不明确,48 项被评为低质量,14 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。总体而言,这些关系大多较弱。在态度、社会规范、感知行为控制以及社会和物理距离之间观察到了较强的关系。而担忧、反应效果、自我效能感和社会距离之间的关系较强。然而,研究结果存在很大的异质性。造成这种异质性的部分原因可能是不同研究对决定因素和距离感的测量存在差异。 作者的结论 本综述的研究结果表明,担心 COVID-19 并认为拉开社会距离是避免 COVID-19 的有效方法的人更有可能采取拉开社会距离的行为。
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 distancing 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 distancing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of distancing.

Objectives

We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to distancing 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 COVID-19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with distancing, 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 distancing (social and/or physical) at an individual level, amongst the general public. We defined physical distancing as, maintaining the recommended distance from others when physically present. And social distancing being defined as, minimising social contact with those outside of your own household. 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.

Main Results

A total of 91 studies were suitable for inclusion in the review, representing 199,604 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with 15 of the studies focusing on specific samples. The majority of studies included participants over 18 years old, with 5 reporting on specific ages (adolescents and adults over 65). The quality of 29 of the studies was rated as unclear, 48 were rated as low, and 14 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Overall the majority of these relationships were weak. Stronger relationships were observed between attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioural control and both social and physical distancing. And between worry, response effectiveness, self-efficacy and social distancing. However, there is a high level of heterogeneity in the findings. This heterogeneity might be, partly, due to the differences in measurement of the determinants and distancing across studies.

Authors' Conclusions

The findings from this review indicate that social distancing behaviours are more likely to be undertaken by people who are worried about COVID-19 and who believe that social distancing is an effective way of avoiding COVID-19. Physical distancing behaviours are more likely to be undertaken by those who believe that they can control physical distancing from others, who believe that physical distancing is the social norm and who have a positive attitude to engaging in this behaviour. It is important to understand how to strengthen these behavioural determinants to develop effective interventions to promote distancing behaviours in any potential future waves of COVID-19, and other respiratory infections.

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
PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of social accountability interventions in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map PROTOCOL: Risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and interventions against child sexual abuse: An umbrella review PROTOCOL: Is the CEO/employee pay ratio related to firm performance in publicly traded companies? New search guidance for Campbell systematic reviews PROTOCOL: The association between adverse childhood experiences and employment outcomes: Protocol for a 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