Risk Perceptions, Knowledge and Behaviors of General and High-Risk Adult Populations towards COVID-19: A Systematic Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic represents a major crisis for governments and populations around the globe. A large number of studies have been conducted worldwide to understand people’s awareness and behavioral response towards the disease. The public’s risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors are key factors that play a vital role in the transmission of infectious diseases. Our scoping review aims to map the early evidence on risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors of general and high-risk adult populations towards COVID-19. Methods A systematic scoping review was conducted of peer-reviewed articles in five databases (MEDLINE-Ovid, EMBASE-Ovid, PsycINFO-Ovid, Web of Science, and CINAHL-EBSCO) on studies conducted during the early stage of COVID-19 (January to June, 2020). The gray literature was also searched through Open Grey, Scopus, Wonder, Social Science Research Network, MedRxiv, and websites of major public health organizations. Twenty studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included, appraised and analyzed. Results During the early stage of the pandemic, levels of risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors towards COVID-19 were moderate to high in both general and high-risk adult populations. The perceived severity of the disease was slightly higher than the perceived susceptibility of getting COVID-19 during the first wave of COVID-19. Adults were knowledgeable about preventive behaviors, including hand-washing, mask-wearing, social distancing, and avoidance behaviors. Nevertheless, an important knowledge gap regarding the asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 was reported in many studies. Our review identified hand-washing and avoiding crowded places as dominant preventive behaviors at the early stage of the pandemic. Staying at home, reducing social contacts, and avoiding public transport were less widespread in general populations than in high-risk adult groups. Being a female, older, and more educated was associated with better knowledge of COVID-19 and appropriate preventive behaviors. Conclusion This scoping review offers a first understanding of general and high-risk adults’ risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors towards COVID-19 during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research should be undertaken to assess psychological and behavioral responses over time. Research gaps have been identified in the relationship between ethnicity and risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors towards COVID-19. Contribution to the field statement Since the beginning of the pandemic, a large number of primary studies have been conducted worldwide to understand people’s awareness and behavioral response towards COVID-19. Nevertheless, no review has mapped the early evidence on the perceptions, knowledge, and preventive behaviors of adult populations towards the transmission of this new disease. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first scoping review that offers an understanding of the general and high-risk adults’ risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors (RPKB) towards COVID-19 during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. This review also identified sociodemographic factors associated with adults’ RPKB regarding COVID-19. As the virus does not affect individuals equally, knowing these factors can help to mitigate the negative effects of COVID-19 in certain population groups by developing targeted communication strategies that will facilitate their engagement in preventive measures. Finally, research gaps have been identified in the relationship between ethnicity and RPKB towards COVID-19. The existence of a disproportionate number of COVID-19 fatalities within Black populations should signal the possible gaps in RPKB towards COVID-19 in these communities. Additional studies on ethnic health disparities can help public health authorities to introduce targeted actions towards these communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".