Background On 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. Methods This 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. Results The 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]. Conclusions Non-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.

Professional sport organizations are increasingly encouraging physical and mental wellness by developing and deploying health promotion activities via socially responsible programming and messaging. However, delivery, deployment, and scope issues, all of which limit observable and sustainable impacts on health promotion and behavior, encumber many socially responsible programs. The authors frame the study using a shared value perspective to demonstrate that sport managers can effectively promote health when the professional sport organization is concurrently attempting to deliver social and business value. To illustrate this approach, the authors used a health-related intervention program funded and delivered by a professional sport league as the research context. The authors undertook a mixed-method, quasi-experimental study to determine the potential to achieve social value (e.g., physical health and mental wellness) and business value (e.g., team, league, and sport affinity, and patronage). The results show that the business-centric effects were stronger among a group of youth beneficiaries than they were among some health-and wellnesscentric variables. The authors discuss the significant effects through a shared value lens and posit several areas for future research.

Although many (sport) organizations around the world have engaged in corporate socially responsible (CSR) and Sport-For-Development (S4D) programing, there is little evidence of actual social impact. This is a problematic omission since many programs (CSR in particular) carry the stigma of marketing ploys used to bolster organizational image or reduce consumer skepticism. To address this issue and build on existing scholarship, the purpose of this study was to evaluate a socially responsible youth employability program in the United Kingdom. The program was developed through the foundation of a professional British soccer team to bolster employability and life skills for marginalized London youth. Program funding was provided by a large multinational bank as part of their overall CSR agenda. This evaluation was undertaken to understand the beneficiary impacts associated with program deployment.Results from the pre-intervention / post-intervention, sequential mixed-method evaluation show statistically significant differences among several "soft" beneficiary outcomes (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy, perceived marketability, etc.). Qualitative findings buttress these results, indicating a high-level of motivation for work and satisfaction with program delivery. While traditionally, CSR and S4D have been viewed as disparately literature streams, we argue that certain elements make them comparatively similar. As such, the results of this evaluation are discussed through both CSR and S4D lenses.

Self-isolation and quarantine measures were introduced by the UK Government on 12 March 2020 as part of the ‘delay’ phase to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Non-adherence to self-isolation for 7 days after the development of symptoms is considered suboptimal and little is known about adherence to quarantine for 14 days if a co-habitant developed symptoms. This study aims to analyse non-adherence behaviours to self-isolation and quarantine measures by identifying their potential psycho-social and demographic predictors and by exploring people’s accounts of their experiences with these measures. A mixed-methods convergent design was used, comprising an online survey (n = 681) completed by residents in six North London boroughs and qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants (n = 16). Findings identified not accessing community support, lack of control over leaving the house, and lack of perceived benefit and need to follow the rules as behaviours associated with non-adherence to quarantine (42.7%). Non-adherence to self-isolating measures (24.4%) was associated with individuals’ perceived lack of control over responsibilities, lack of control over leaving the house, uncertainty about symptoms experienced, lack of access to tests, and distrust in the Government. Adherence to self-isolation and quarantine could be improved through strengthening perceived benefit to self-isolate with messages emphasising its effectiveness, by implementing a two-way information system to support symptoms identification, and with Government-funded, locally supported packages at different levels (financial, food, and practical needs).

Social distancing measures implemented by governments worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic have proven an effective intervention to control the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. There is a growing literature on predictors of adherence behaviours to social distancing measures, however, there are no comprehensive insights into the nature and types of non-adherence behaviours. To address this gap in the literature, we studied non-adherence in terms of counts of infringements and people’s accounts on their behaviours in a sample of North London residents. We focused on the following social distancing rules: keeping 2 mts. distancing, meeting family and friends, and going out for non-essential reasons. A mixed-methods explanatory sequential design was used comprising an online survey (May 1–31, 2020) followed by semi-structured in-depth interviews held with a purposive sample of survey respondents (August 5 –September 21, 2020). A negative binomial regression model (quantitative) and Framework Analysis (qualitative) were undertaken.681 individuals completed the survey, and 30 individuals were interviewed. We integrated survey and interview findings following three levels of the Social Ecological model: individual, interpersonal and community levels. We identified non-adherence behaviours as unintentional (barriers beyond individual’s control) and intentional (deliberate decision). Unintentional adherence was reported by interviewees as, lack of controllability in keeping 2 mts. distancing, environmental constraints, social responsibility towards the community and feeling low risk. Intentional non-adherence was statistically associated with and reported as lack of trust in Government, support from friends, and lack of knowledge about rules. In addition, interviewees reported individual risk assessment and decision making on the extent to following the rules, and perceived lack of adherence in the local area. Our findings indicate that unintentional and intentional non-adherence should be improved by Government partnerships with local communities to build trust in social distancing measures; tailored messaging to young adults emphasising the need of protecting others whilst clarifying the risk of transmission; and ensuring COVID-secured environments by working with environmental health officers.