Very small effects of an imagery-based randomised trial to promote adherence to wearing face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic and identification of future intervention targets

Conroy, Dominic; Smith, Debbie; Armitage, Christopher J.

doi:10.1080/08870446.2021.2012574

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that there was >80% use of face coverings in public transport settings closely resembles previous estimates of the wearing of face coverings of >70% (e.g., Conroy et al, 2022 ; Freidin et al, 2021 ). However, the context is clearly important and adherence to face coverings was markedly lower in work places and leisure settings.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…For example, it is not clear how well household overcrowding reflects people's reflective or automatic motivation to wear a face covering (Michie et al, 2014). A further limitation of previous research into the wearing of face coverings (e.g., Armitage et al, 2021;Conroy et al, 2022) is a focus on a single context, whereas government legislation/guidance attached to the wearing of face coverings has differed greatly between contexts (e.g., at all times on public transport; when not eating or drinking in leisure contexts) and has not been captured directly in previous studies.…”

Section: What This Study Adds?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wearing face coverings protects the wearer from airborne viruses as well as protecting non‐wearers from infection; even limited wearing of face coverings should decrease community transmission of airborne viruses (Greenhalgh et al, 2020 ; Howard et al, 2021 ). Adherence to government COVID‐19‐related instructions has generally been high (e.g., Armitage et al, 2021 ), and estimates suggest that adherence to wearing face coverings may have been as high as 90% in some countries (e.g., Freidin et al, 2021 ) and 73% in the UK (Conroy et al, 2022 ). However, as countries relax legal imperatives with respect to the wearing of face coverings, there is a need to understand why people do or do not wear face coverings in case new airborne viral threats emerge and face covering mandates need to be reinstated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Identifying targets for interventions to support public use of face coverings

Armitage

Keyworth

Gartland

et al. 2022

British J Health Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Interventions to promote the wearing of face coverings if required in the future can only be developed if we know why people do or do not wear them. Study aims were, therefore, to assess public adherence to wearing face coverings to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and to gauge why people were or were not wearing face coverings in work, public transport, and indoor leisure settings. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: 10,622 adults (25 January-6 February 2022) who were representative of the UK population were asked about their (a) wearing of face coverings in work, public transport, and leisure settings; (b) sociodemographic characteristics; and (c) perceptions of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations ("COM-B"). Data were analysed descriptively, using within-participants ANOVA and multiple linear regression. Results: Participants reported mostly wearing face coverings in public transport settings (>80%), but substantially less in work (<50%) and leisure (<30%) contexts. Perceptions of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to wear face coverings were consistently associated with the actual wearing of face coverings across the three settings, but there were marked deficits in automatic motivation and | 209 PUBLIC USE OF FACE COVERINGS

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: What This Study Adds?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identifying targets for interventions to support public use of face coverings

Armitage

Keyworth

Gartland

et al. 2022

British J Health Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interventions should be evidence-based and target potentially modifiable beliefs. Previous mask wearing was the greatest predictor of subsequent mask wearing (Conroy et al, 2022). Therefore, efforts to increase wearing a facemask in future outbreaks of infection should focus on those known to be less adherent during the COVID-19 pandemic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent review evidence has found mixed results for interventions aiming to increase the use of facemasks (Perski et al, 2022). Another study investigating whether a mental imagery intervention affected wearing a facemask found no intervention effects (Conroy et al, 2022). During future severe infectious disease outbreaks, ensuring that members of the public have a clear understanding of the risks involved and how these might be mitigated by the use of masks will be important in determining adherence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with wearing a facemask in shops in England following removal of a legal requirement to do so during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Smith

West

Potts

et al. 2023

British J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWe aimed to identify psychological factors associated with the use of facemasks in shops in England following removal of legal requirements to do so, and to compare associations with and without legal restrictions.DesignRepeated cross‐sectional online surveys (n ≈ 2000 adults) between August 2020 and April 2022 (68,716 responses from 45,682 participants) using quota sampling.MethodsThe outcome measure was whether those who had visited a shop for essentials in the previous seven days reported always having worn a facemask versus sometimes or not at all. Psychological predictor variables included worry, perceived risk and severity of COVID‐19 and the perceived effectiveness of facemasks. Socio‐demographic variables and measures of clinical vulnerability were also measured. For the period following removal of legal restrictions, multivariable regression was used to assess associations between the primary outcome variable and predictors adjusting for socio‐demographic and clinical vulnerability measures. The analysis was repeated including interactions between psychological predictors and presence versus absence of legal restrictions.ResultsWorry about COVID‐19, beliefs about risks and severity of COVID‐19 and effectiveness of facemasks were substantially and independently associated with the use of facemasks. Removal of legal obligations to wear facemasks was associated with a 25% decrease in wearing facemasks and stronger associations between psychological predictors and wearing facemasks.ConclusionsLegal obligations increase rates of wearing a facemask. Psychological factors associated with wearing a facemask could be targets for interventions aiming to alter rates of wearing a facemask. These interventions may be more effective when there are no legal obligations to wear a face covering in place.

show abstract

Very small effects of an imagery-based randomised trial to promote adherence to wearing face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic and identification of future intervention targets

Cited by 2 publications

References 61 publications

Identifying targets for interventions to support public use of face coverings

Identifying targets for interventions to support public use of face coverings

Factors associated with wearing a facemask in shops in England following removal of a legal requirement to do so during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About