Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33980316›Full record

ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2021

Determinants of adherence to COVID-19 measures among the Belgian population: an application of the protection motivation theory.

Joris Adriaan Frank van Loenhout, Kirsten Vanderplanken, Bénédicte Scheen, Stephan Van den Broucke, Isabelle Aujoulat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Cessation of Face Mask Use after COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Diabetes: Prevalence and Determinants.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Joris Adriaan Frank van LoenhoutCentre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Institute of Health and Society, Université catholique de Louvain, Clos Chapelle-Aux-Champs 30, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. joris.vanloenhout@uclouvain.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7810-7738
Kirsten VanderplankenCentre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Institute of Health and Society, Université catholique de Louvain, Clos Chapelle-Aux-Champs 30, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Bénédicte ScheenCentre for Health promotion knowledge transfer (RESO), Institute of Health and Society, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Stephan Van den BrouckePsychological Sciences Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Isabelle AujoulatCentre for Health promotion knowledge transfer (RESO), Institute of Health and Society, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the Belgian government has implemented various infection prevention and control measures. This study assessed the extent to which the general population in Belgium adhered to these measures, and which determinants were associated with adherence.

methodsWe undertook an internet survey among a sample of the Belgian population, representative for sex, age, socio-economic status and province. The questionnaire included various demographic, socio-economic and health-related questions, and also drew upon the Protection Motivation Theory as a theoretical framework to measure levels of perceived severity, vulnerability, perceived usefulness of the measures (response efficacy), perceived personal capacity to adhere (self-efficacy), and past and future adherence. Data were collected in Dutch and French, the main languages of Belgium.

resultsOur study was carried out in September 2020, and the number of respondents was 2008. On average, respondents provided high scores for each of the measures in place in September in terms of response efficacy (range of 3.54-4.32 on 1 to 5 Likert-scale), self-efficacy (range of 3.00-4.00), past adherence (4.00-4.68) and future adherence (3.99-4.61). The measure that overall received the highest scores was wearing a face mask in public spaces, while 'the social bubble of 5' generally received the lowest scores. There was a statistically significant relationship between response efficacy and self-efficacy on the one hand and (past and future) adherence on the other hand, in a multivariate model corrected for confounders. Vulnerability and severity did not show statistical significance.

conclusionRisk communication regarding COVID-19 should place a stronger emphasis on helping people understand why implemented measures are useful and how they can be put into practice, more than on increasing fear appeals.

Indexed as

AdherenceCOVID-19Perceived severityProtection motivation TheoryResponse efficacySelf-efficacyVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID33980316
PMCPMC8114654

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.