Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33539309›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Comparing Public Perceptions and Preventive Behaviors During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom: Cross-sectional Survey Study.

Leigh Bowman, Kin On Kwok, Rozlyn Redd, Yuanyuan Yi, Helen Ward, Wan In Wei, Christina Atchison, Samuel Yeung-Shan Wong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Analysis of the Face Mask Use by Public Transport Passengers and Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Leigh BowmanMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics (J-IDEA), School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0657-7911
Kin On KwokJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-2804-5433
Rozlyn ReddPatient Experience Research Centre, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4776-2769
Yuanyuan YiJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0003-2594-8423
Helen WardMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics (J-IDEA), School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8238-5036
Wan In WeiJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0001-8083-3528
Christina AtchisonPatient Experience Research Centre, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8304-7389
Samuel Yeung-Shan WongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0003-0934-6385

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19012Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1Wellcome Trust 205456/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the public health responses to previous respiratory disease pandemics, and in the absence of treatments and vaccines, the mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic relies on population engagement in nonpharmaceutical interventions. This engagement is largely driven by risk perception, anxiety levels, and knowledge, as well as by historical exposure to disease outbreaks, government responses, and cultural factors.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to compare psychobehavioral responses in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsComparable cross-sectional surveys were administered to adults in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom during the early phase of the epidemic in each setting. Explanatory variables included demographics, risk perception, knowledge of COVID-19, anxiety level, and preventive behaviors. Responses were weighted according to census data. Logistic regression models, including effect modification to quantify setting differences, were used to assess the association between the explanatory variables and the adoption of social distancing measures.

resultsData from 3431 complete responses (Hong Kong, 1663; United Kingdom, 1768) were analyzed. Perceived severity of symptoms differed by setting, with weighted percentages of 96.8% for Hong Kong (1621/1663) and 19.9% for the United Kingdom (366/1768). A large proportion of respondents were abnormally or borderline anxious (Hong Kong: 1077/1603, 60.0%; United Kingdom: 812/1768, 46.5%) and regarded direct contact with infected individuals as the transmission route of COVID-19 (Hong Kong: 94.0%-98.5%; United Kingdom: 69.2%-93.5%; all percentages weighted), with Hong Kong identifying additional routes. Hong Kong reported high levels of adoption of various social distancing measures (Hong Kong: 32.6%-93.7%; United Kingdom: 17.6%-59.0%) and mask-wearing (Hong Kong: 98.8% (1647/1663); United Kingdom: 3.1% (53/1768)). The impact of perceived severity of symptoms and perceived ease of transmission of COVID-19 on the adoption of social distancing measures varied by setting. In Hong Kong, these factors had no impact, whereas in the United Kingdom, those who perceived their symptom severity as "high" were more likely to adopt social distancing (adjusted odds ratios [aORs] 1.58-3.01), and those who perceived transmission as "easy" were prone to adopt both general social distancing (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.57-2.55) and contact avoidance (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.41-2.30). The impact of anxiety on adopting social distancing did not vary by setting.

conclusionsOur results suggest that health officials should ascertain baseline levels of risk perception and knowledge in populations, as well as prior sensitization to infectious disease outbreaks, during the development of mitigation strategies. Risk should be communicated through suitable media channels-and trust should be maintained-while early intervention remains the cornerstone of effective outbreak response.

Indexed as

Public OpinionAdolescentAdultCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesDisease OutbreaksDisease Transmission, InfectiousFemaleHong KongHumansInfection ControlMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and Questionnairesanxietybehavioural responsecomparativeCOVID-19Hong Kongnovel coronaviruspandemicrisk perceptionsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID33539309
PMCPMC7942393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.