TY - JOUR
T1 - Interventions to promote physical distancing behaviour during infectious disease pandemics or epidemics
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Epton, Tracy
AU - Ghio, Daniela
AU - Ballard, Lisa M
AU - Allen, Sarah F
AU - Kassianos, Angelos P
AU - Hewitt, Rachael
AU - Swainston, Katherine
AU - Fynn, Wendy Irene
AU - Rowland, Vickie
AU - Westbrook, Juliette
AU - Jenkinson, Elizabeth
AU - Morrow, Alison
AU - McGeechan, Grant J
AU - Stanescu, Sabina
AU - Yousuf, Aysha A
AU - Sharma, Nisha
AU - Begum, Suhana
AU - Karasouli, Eleni
AU - Scanlan, Daniel
AU - Shorter, Gillian W
AU - Arden, Madelynne A
AU - Armitage, Christopher J
AU - O'Connor, Daryl B
AU - Kamal, Atiya
AU - McBride, Emily
AU - Swanson, Vivien
AU - Hart, Jo
AU - Byrne-Davis, Lucie
AU - Chater, Angel
AU - Drury, John
N1 - Funding Information:
This review received no funding. The work of John Drury on this paper was supported by a grant from the ESRC (reference number ES/V005383/1 ). The work of Christopher Armitage on this paper was supported by NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre.
PY - 2022/6/1
Y1 - 2022/6/1
N2 - OBJECTIVES: Physical distancing, defined as keeping 1-2m apart when co-located, can prevent cases of droplet or aerosol transmitted infectious diseases such as SARS-CoV2. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distancing was a recommendation or a requirement in many countries. This systematic review aimed to determine which interventions and behavior change techniques (BCTs) are effective in promoting adherence to distancing and through which potential mechanisms of action (MOAs).METHODS: Six databases were searched. The review included studies that were (a) conducted on humans, (b) reported physical distancing interventions, (c) included any comparator (e.g., pre-intervention versus post-intervention; randomized controlled trial), and (d) reported actual distancing or predictors of distancing behavior. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. BCTs and potential MoAs were identified in each intervention.RESULTS: Six articles (with seven studies and 19 comparisons) indicated that distancing interventions could successfully change MoAs and behavior. Successful BCTs (MoAs) included feedback on behavior (e.g., motivation); information about health consequences, salience of health consequences (e.g., beliefs about consequences), demonstration (e.g., beliefs about capabilities), and restructuring the physical environment (e.g., environmental context and resources). The most promising interventions were proximity buzzers, directional systems, and posters with loss-framed messages that demonstrated the behaviors.CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates several BCTs and potential MoAs that should be targeted in interventions and highlights gaps that should be the focus of future research.
AB - OBJECTIVES: Physical distancing, defined as keeping 1-2m apart when co-located, can prevent cases of droplet or aerosol transmitted infectious diseases such as SARS-CoV2. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distancing was a recommendation or a requirement in many countries. This systematic review aimed to determine which interventions and behavior change techniques (BCTs) are effective in promoting adherence to distancing and through which potential mechanisms of action (MOAs).METHODS: Six databases were searched. The review included studies that were (a) conducted on humans, (b) reported physical distancing interventions, (c) included any comparator (e.g., pre-intervention versus post-intervention; randomized controlled trial), and (d) reported actual distancing or predictors of distancing behavior. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. BCTs and potential MoAs were identified in each intervention.RESULTS: Six articles (with seven studies and 19 comparisons) indicated that distancing interventions could successfully change MoAs and behavior. Successful BCTs (MoAs) included feedback on behavior (e.g., motivation); information about health consequences, salience of health consequences (e.g., beliefs about consequences), demonstration (e.g., beliefs about capabilities), and restructuring the physical environment (e.g., environmental context and resources). The most promising interventions were proximity buzzers, directional systems, and posters with loss-framed messages that demonstrated the behaviors.CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates several BCTs and potential MoAs that should be targeted in interventions and highlights gaps that should be the focus of future research.
KW - COVID-19
KW - Physical distancing
KW - Social distancing
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130781885&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114946
DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114946
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35605431
SN - 0277-9536
VL - 303
JO - Social Science and Medicine
JF - Social Science and Medicine
M1 - 114946
ER -