An Assessment of Social Distancing Obedience Behavior during the COVID-19 Post-Epidemic Period in China: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Abstract

Social distancing plays a critical role in reducing the disease diffusion risk during the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic period. In order to explore the social distancing obedience behavior, a comprehensive survey was conducted in this study by collecting data from 1064 Chinese residents in January 2021 by means of a questionnaire. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and hierarchical linear regression (HLR) analyses were employed to investigate the research hypotheses considered, testing the three influencing factors of social distancing obedience behavior: public guidance, risk perception, and regulation punishment. The reliability and validity of the measurements are demonstrated. The outcomes from the conducted analyses show that the public guidance significantly affects risk perception of individuals, while risk perception imposes a positive impact on social distancing obedience behavior. Moreover, risk perception serves a mediating role in the relationship between the public guidance and social distancing obedience behavior. In addition, regulation punishment positively predicts social distancing obedience behavior and could even have a greater effect by enhancing risk perception. Hence, this study suggests that the relevant authorities and agencies implement strong social distancing policies during the COVID-19 post-pandemic period from the perspective of promoting the public guidance, risk perception, and regulation punishment.

Investigation of Mental Health Literacy and Status of Residents During the Re-Outbreak of COVID-19 in China

“…The mental health literacy questionnaire is divided into three parts: judgment questions, self-assessment questions, and case analysis questions. There are 20 judgment questions in total, mainly including the common knowledge related to mental health, five points for correct answers, 0 points for wrong answers or unknowing, out of 100 points, of which ten questions (1,3,5,7,8,9,10,15,16,19) aim to express the correct mental health knowledge, the others are wrong mental health knowledge; the second part of the self-assessment questions are mainly about self-behaviors in life and views on mental health, containing a total of eight questions with the total score of 8-32 points; the third part of the case analysis questions is divided into two groups with potential mental health problems, each group contains four questions, with the total score of 40 points; the qualifying criteria of mental health literacy are judgment questions ≥80 points, self-assessment questions ≥24 points, and case analysis questions ≥28 points. PHQ-9 contains nine items, each item scored 0-3, with 5-9 divided into mild depression, 10-14 moderate depression, 15-19 moderately severe depression, and 20-27 severe depression (16).…”

“…In China, through the joint efforts of the government and the masses, the rebound and import of new cases of COVID-19 have been controlled, and China has entered the stage of normalized epidemic prevention, which is also called the “post-epidemic era.” In the post-epidemic era, although public physical health is gradually recovering, the adverse mental health outcomes caused by the epidemic may still persist or even worsen ( 9 , 10 ). Studies have shown that psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are still very common within a period of time after major emergencies such as public health emergencies, and the prevalence of PTSD can even reach 33.3% ( 11 ), therefore, more attention should be paid to the public mental health under the post-epidemic era.…”

Tracing Chinese international students’ psychological and academic adjustments in uncertain times: An exploratory case study in the United Kingdom

“…The global surge of COVID-19 has turned out to be one of the severest pandemics and public health crises in the 21st century and has generated deep repercussions on many aspects of our individual life and society, as well as the ways in which we participate in the global structure in times of disruption and uncertainty ( Caserotti et al, 2021 ; He et al, 2021 ; Khorram-Manesh et al, 2021 ; Siegrist et al, 2021 ; Tsoy et al, 2021 ; Yuan et al, 2021 ; Moosavi et al, 2022 ). In a bid to curb and respond to COVID-19, there exist a large number of prevention and control strategies such as travel restriction, vaccination promotion, epidemic surveillance and risk perception, ongoing quarantine and lockdowns, which combine to subject people from all walks of life to the influence of this global pandemic ( Caserotti et al, 2021 ; He et al, 2021 ; Tsoy et al, 2021 ).…”

Individual and collective protective responses during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 10 different countries: Results from the EUCLID online survey

“…The relation between perceived risk and protective behavior has been underscored by meta-analyses on various measures of risk perception and their relationship to a range of protective intentions and behaviors ( Brewer et al, 2007 ;Sheeran et al, 2014 ). Also studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic have examined this relationship with regard to various protective behaviors (for a review, see Cipolletta et al, 2022 ), such as hygiene behavior (e.g., Betsch et al, 2021 ;Dryhurst et al, 2020 ;Qin et al, 2021 ;Siegrist et al, 2021 ), contact avoidance (e.g., Betsch et al, 2021 ;Dryhurst et al, 2020 ;Qin et al, 2021 ;Siegrist et al, 2021 ;Villinger et al, 2022 ;Xie et al, 2020 ;Yuan et al, 2021 ), wearing a face mask (e.g., Betsch et al, 2021 ;Dryhurst et al, 2020 ), and vaccinations (e.g., Caserotti et al, 2021 ). From a theoretical perspective, risk perceptions are influenced by general facts about the hazard or pandemic situation (i.e., the number of cases or deaths), information and opinions provided by governmental sources, classic or social media (e.g., Cipolletta et al, 2022 ;He et al, 2021 ;Malecki et al, 2021 ;Tsoy et al, 2021 ), and personal experience with the hazard ( Cipolletta et al, 2022 ;Weinstein, 1989 ).…”