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.

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.

SUMMARYThis article looks at medical approaches to women's fertility in Argentina in the 1930s and explores the ways in which eugenics encouraged the reproduction of the fit and attempted to avoid the reproduction of the unfit. The analysis concentrates on three main aspects: biotypology (the scientific classification of bodies), endocrine therapy, and sterilization. The article concludes by suggesting that a eugenically oriented obstetrical and gynecological practice encouraged both endocrine treatments (to achieve the ideal fertile woman) and sterilization, which, in spite of being legally banned, found a subtle application. KeywordsArgentinian eugenics; constitutional medicine; biotypology; female types; endocrinology; hormonotherapy; sterilization During the 1930s, the prolonged decline of birthrates in Argentina, along with other factors such as high infant mortality rates and the existence of "weakening" diseases such as tuberculosis, alcoholism, and syphilis, meant that the "demographic question" became a matter not only of the quantity, but also of the quality of the population. "One Argentinian in three grows up to be an inferior man," a Socialist deputy noted with alarm, later concluding: "The energies of the nation are in danger."1The immediate effect of such opinions was the creation of the National Direction of Maternity and Infancy (NDMI) in 1936, which reflected the perceived relationship between woman and nation, together with the political possibility of intervention to transform bodies based on a belief in eugenics. This intellectual framework had many points of reference in other countries such as France, Italy, and Germany, where the state intervened in the private sphere to regulate the family, sexuality, reproduction, and particularly maternity, in order to promote biological and social change.In Argentina, following the French model of puericulture (the scientific method of childrearing), the mother and, by extension, child care became the principal object of eugenics, and maternity and infancy institutes its main center of action. Explaining this relationship, a prominent obstetrician, Dr. José Beruti, stated in the Second Pan-American Conference of Eugenics held in Buenos Aires in 1934 that YOLANDA ERASO completed her Ph.D. in 2006 and currently holds a Wellcome Trust Research Fellowship at the Centre for Health, Medicine and Society at Oxford Brookes University, Tonge Building, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, United Kingdom (email: yolyeraso@yahoo.co.uk). She has published numerous articles and chapters on the history of psychiatry, and more recently, on the medical and cultural aspects of maternity. Her principal research interest at present is the history of female cancer in Argentina from public and private perspectives.

Objective: Previous studies emphasise the negative psychological and physical consequences of Postnatal Depression (PND) on mothers and children's health.In the UK, around 10-20% of women can be affected by perinatal mental health problems. Minority ethnic groups such as Black African mothers are considered to be at greater risk of developing PND and data estimates that immigrant mothers are twice more likely to develop PND than native mothers. The unique experiences and needs of this culturally diverse group remain little explored in the UK. To address this gap in the literature, this study aimed to explore the lived experiences of First-Generation Nigerian Mothers (FGNMs) who suffered PND, their coping behaviours and treatment experiences in the UK.Design: Six FGNMs with a previous diagnosis of PND and treatment experiences were purposefully recruited from GP practices and social groups attended by Nigerian mothers in the UK. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.Results: Three master and seven subordinate themes were identified: (i) Sociocultural factors (Inter-generational transmission; cultural perceptions: shame and stigma; transitions: adjusting to a new culture); (ii) What about me? The neglected nurturer (experiences of treatment; pretending to be OK); and (iii) Loneliness and coping (lack of support from partner; self-reliance). Conclusions:The study provides evidence about the difficulties encountered by FGNMs in relation to PND, including socio-cultural factors, neglect from family and healthcare professionals, and self-reliance as a coping strategy. Contrary to reports suggesting that Black ethnic groups do not seek help for their mental health needs, participants' accounts indicated that their attempts to engage with professionals were met with unsatisfactory responses. The findings of this study highlight the need to address barriers affecting access to services by fostering a patient-centred and culturally sensitive approach in healthcare teams to effectively engage mothers at an early stage in the detection pathway.