When, why, and how do People Deviate from Physical Distancing Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Study

Abstract

To limit the spread of COVID-19, many countries, including Belgium, have installed physical distancing measures. Yet, adherence to these newly installed behavioral measures has been described as challenging and effortful. Based on the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model, this study performed an in-depth evaluation of when, why, and how people deviated from the physical distancing measures.An online mixed-method study was conducted among Belgian adults (N = 2055) in the beginning of May 2020. Participants were recruited via an open call through email and social media platforms, using snowball sampling. Conditions wherein people deviated from the physical distancing measures were assessed by means of an open-ended question. HAPA determinants were assessed in a quantitative way.Half of the sample reported to deviate from the measures. Further, deviation from the measures was associated with each determinant outlined by the HAPA. Findings highlight that many people deviated from the measures because of their need for social contact. The majority of the people who deviated from the measures stated that they carefully weighed the risks of their behavior.Need for social contact pushed people to deviate from physical distancing measures in a deliberate manner. Potential areas for future interventions aimed at promoting adherence to physical distancing measures and enhancing psychosocial wellbeing are discussed.

Compliance with Barrier Gestures during COVID-19 Pandemic as a Function of the Context: A Longitudinal Observational Survey at the University of Liège

“…In the present situation, the acceleration of vaccination deployment in the population (19.3% of Walloon adults were fully vaccinated by 24 May 2021 vs. 40.6% by of 21 June 2021 [ 26 ]) and the decrease in the number of new cases each week (from 4585 in week 21 to 615 in week 25 vs. 9742 in week 11 in Wallonia [ 27 ]) may have induced a lower risk perception. As highlighted in previous studies [ 10 , 11 , 19 ], a lower risk perception was associated with a lower compliance with barrier gestures and could, therefore, explain a relaxation of their implementation. That said, this hypothesis should be confirmed, as a study realized in 10 universities around the world [ 28 ] showed that compliance with barrier gestures was not uniformly influenced by the same factors, given the underlying differences between hygiene measures and measures related to physical distancing.…”

“…The former refers to the extent to which individuals perceived that it was the norm to adopt the barrier gestures, while the latter refers to the availability of the organizational and technical infrastructure that supports the implementation [ 8 ]. Although several studies focused on the acceptability, the adhesion, and the self-declared compliance of the population to barrier gestures [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ], there are fewer studies assessing the compliance with barrier gestures directly by observational methods [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ] and/or taking into account the contextual factors as mentioned. This has limited our understanding of how the organization and management of barrier gestures can be efficiently improved, from a public health and institutional perspective.…”

Barriers to and facilitators of populational adherence to prevention and control measures of COVID-19 and other respiratory infectious diseases: a qualitative evidence synthesis

“…Most included studies focused on barriers and facilitators to prevent and control COVID-19 [ 32 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 46 – 54 , 58 , 60 , 62 – 64 , 66 – 68 , 70 , 72 , 76 , 80 – 82 , 85 – 88 , 92 , 94 , 95 , 97 , 98 , 100 , 102 ] and influenza [ 35 , 36 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 61 , 65 , 69 , 71 , 74 , 75 , 78 , 79 , 99 , 101 ]. Other studies focused on TB [ 56 , 83 , 84 , 89 – 91 , 93 , 96 , 102 ], pneumonia [ 33 , 35 , 38 , 77 , 79 ] and pertussis [ 57 , 65 , 73 ].…”

“…However, some studies did not report some relevant aspects. This included 34 studies that did not provide sufficient information to justify if the research design was appropriate to address the aims of the study [ 36 – 42 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 67 , 70 , 71 , 73 , 74 , 76 , 81 , 83 , 87 , 88 , 90 – 92 , 96 – 99 ], and five studies that did not report how participants were selected, limiting our judgement on the appropriateness of the recruitment strategy [ 40 , 41 , 67 , 72 , 100 ]. All studies provided a clear statement of findings, but only two studies explored the relationship between the researcher and participants regarding their role, potential bias and influence [ 73 , 93 ].…”

“…Several studies [ 45 , 47 , 71 , 74 , 89 – 91 ] point out that the lack of knowledge about respiratory infectious diseases hinders the perception of their severity and adherence to prevention and control measures. Studies also suggested that this aspect negatively affected the willingness to wear facemasks [ 36 , 46 , 54 , 62 , 69 , 78 , 82 ]. Conversely, knowledge about transmission risks facilitated the use of facemasks and other preventive and control measures [ 32 , 40 , 46 , 49 , 52 , 60 , 69 , 78 , 94 ].…”