Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33581734›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

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

Stephen Hills, Yolanda Eraso

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
23.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen HillsGuildhall School of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, 166-220 Holloway Rd, London, N7 8DB, England. s.hills@londonmet.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5894-1418
Yolanda ErasoSchool of Social Professions, London Metropolitan University, 166-220 Holloway Rd, London, N7 8DB, England.
London Metropolitan University · GB

Funding

London Metropolitan University 'Transformation Fund' (HEIF)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOn 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.

methodsThis 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.

resultsThe 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].

conclusionsNon-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.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicPandemicsPhysical DistancingAdultAgedCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansLogistic ModelsLondonMaleMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesBehavioursCOVID-19LondonNon-adherencePandemicSocial distancing

Identifiers

PMID33581734
PMCPMC7881344
OpenAlexW3130708457

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.