No abstract

No abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid antigen point-of-care and home tests are available to laypeople. In four cross-sectional mixed-methods data collections conducted between December 2020 and March 2021 (n = 4,026), we showed that a majority of subjects were willing to test despite mistrust and ignorance regarding rapid tests’ validity. Experimental evidence shows that low costs and access to events could increase testing intentions. Mandatory reporting and isolation after positive results were not identified as major barriers. Instead, assuming that testing and isolation can slow down the pandemic and the possibility to protect others were related to greater willingness to get tested. While we did not find evidence for risk compensation for past tests, experimental evidence suggests that there is a tendency to show less mask wearing and physical distancing in a group of tested individuals. A short communication intervention reduced complacent behavior. The derived recommendations could make rapid testing a successful pillar of pandemic management.

Abstract. Age is a critical risk factor for severe COVID-19. This is mirrored by older people showing preventive health behaviors more frequently. However, collective action across all age groups is necessary to reduce transmission. Therefore, this study assessed whether age differences are moderated by policy changes and whether policies further moderate the relationship between psychological determinants of behavior (risk perceptions and trust), age, and preventive behaviors. Risk perceptions, trust in institutions, self-reported frequency of preventive behaviors (mask-wearing, avoiding social gatherings), and demographics (e.g., age) were collected within the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO), a German serial cross-sectional survey. A total of 19,069 participants across 20 measurement points were included (online sample, quota-representative for Age × Gender and federal state in Germany; mid-April to the end of November 2020). Regression analyses showed that age differences in avoiding social gatherings and mask-wearing remained stable under different health policies but were further moderated by psychological variables. The introduction of stricter policies alone was not related to higher adoption rates of preventive behaviors, but it mitigated the effects of age and risk perceptions. Moreover, under mandatory policies, the correlation between trust in institutions and behaviors was amplified. The present research made a strong case for quality, targeted health, and risk communication. Without mandatory policies, the importance of preventive behaviors must be well understood to achieve high adherence – especially in young people who are threatened by the disease less directly.

Background Nighttime curfews have been discussed and implemented in many countries as a means of controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is evidence that such curfews have little or no effect on disease dynamics when other measures such as bans on gatherings or business and school closures are already in place. There are two possible explanations for this. First, nighttime curfews may elicit reactance—a feeling of anger that drives non-adherence; second, nighttime curfews may motivate people to shift activities from night to daytime, thereby increasing contact density. Methods A survey experiment was conducted with German participants ( N = 997) to investigate public perceptions of nighttime curfews and possible detrimental effects on contact behaviors. Results Most participants perceived nighttime curfews as ineffective. The introduction of a hypothetical curfew did not affect intentions to reduce private contacts but instead elicited reactance, motivating participants to violate curfew hours or to shift a fictitious dinner meeting to an earlier time rather than cancelling it. Conclusions When people do not support nighttime curfews or do not understand the rationale behind them, introduction of this measure may fuel the spread of the disease. For that reason, nighttime curfews should be a measure of last resort and should be accompanied by a public communication campaign explaining the importance of contact reduction during both nighttime and daylight hours.