Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41458240›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2025

Pandemic risk-related behaviour change in England from June 2020 to March 2022: the cross-sectional REACT-1 study among over 2 million people.

Nicholas Steyn, Marc Chadeau-Hyam, Matthew Whitaker, Christina Atchison, Deborah Ashby, Graham S Cooke, Helen Ward, Paul Elliott, Christl A Donnelly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Nicholas SteynDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8904-2941
Marc Chadeau-HyamMRC Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Matthew WhitakerSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Christina AtchisonSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8304-7389
Deborah AshbyFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London-South Kensington Campus, London, UK.
Graham S CookeSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Helen WardSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Paul ElliottSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7511-5684
Christl A DonnellyDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0195-2463

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To determine how people in England changed their infection risk-related behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic and in response to control measures, 19 June 2020 to 31 March 2022. Design: Over 18 (of 19) rounds, randomly selected participants across England completed a questionnaire about risk-related behaviours, sociodemographics and symptoms. Participants: Between 85 018 and 154 060 randomly selected participants per round, aged 5+ years, totalling 2 177 657 responses with relevant data. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes were self-reported shielding and/or taking specific precautions, not leaving home in the prior week, not being in close proximity with anyone outside their household the day before and wearing face coverings outside the home. Secondary community-level measures of mobility and public health policy stringency were compared with the primary outcomes to provide population-level context to the observed findings. Results: Infection risk-related behaviours varied considerably over the nearly 2 years under study. Protective behaviours peaked in January 2021, during England's winter wave, before widespread vaccination. At that time, the estimated proportion of self-reported shielding and/or taking specific precautions reached 21.6% (95% CI 21.4% to 21.8%), of self-reported not leaving home in the week prior to completing the questionnaire reached 7.99% (95% CI 7.85% to 8.13%) and of self-reported not having contact with anyone outside their household on the day before answering the questionnaire reached 89.2% (95% CI 89.1% to 89.4%). As self-reported vaccination rates increased and prevalence of infection decreased, protective behaviours decreased, although patterns varied by demographics. Protective behaviours were strongly correlated with community-level mobility data and the stringency of public health measures. Conclusions: Individual-based data showed sizeable proportions of people undertook protective behaviours during the pandemic, especially during the second lockdown in January 2021, although there was evidence of 'pandemic fatigue' in the study's later stages. Self-reported behaviours were closely aligned with community mobility data and the stringency of government policies, indicating policy-driven behavioural changes.

Indexed as

COVID-19EpidemicsHumansPopulation SurveillanceSocial Cohesion

Identifiers

PMID41458240
PMCPMC12742070

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.