MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154358594 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13237.1

Adherence to physical distancing guidance in Ireland: a nationally representative analysis from the International COVID-19 Awareness and Responses Evaluation (iCARE) study

2021· preprint· en· W3154358594 on OpenAlexaff
Hannah Durand, Simon Bacon, Molly Byrne, Karen Farrell, Eanna Kenny, Kim Lavoie, Brian E. McGuire, Jenny McSharry, Oonagh Meade, Robert Mooney, Chris Noone, Laura O’Connor, Kate O'Flaherty, Gerard J. Molloy

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalConcordia UniversityHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial distanceDistancingPublic healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthPsychologyPandemicMedicineDiseaseNursingInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Physical distancing measures (i.e., limiting physical contact with people outside of one’s household, maintaining a 2-metre distance between oneself and others, avoiding non-essential travel, etc.) are among the primary strategies used to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These measures will remain crucial during the rollout of newly developed vaccines to limit community-based spread of COVID-19 and prevent healthcare systems from becoming overburdened. Therefore, it is essential to understand the determinants of public adherence to physical distancing measures to inform current and future public health communications. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> As part of the International COVID-19 Awareness and Responses Evaluation (iCARE) study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted to evaluate behavioural responses to physical distancing measures in Ireland. A nationally representative sample of 1000 adults completed the survey over one week in June 2020 during Phase 2 restrictions. Participants completed measures assessing socio-demographic characteristics, theory-based psychological predictors, and physical distancing behaviours. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> Awareness of restrictions in place at the time of data collection was high overall, as was adherence to most physical distancing measures. Participants aged 25–34 years reported the poorest adherence to maintaining a 2-metre distance from others (71.2%, versus 79–90% for all other age groups), avoiding social gatherings (42.4%, versus 52–62%) and avoiding non-essential travel (63.9%, versus 69–79%). Females were slightly more adherent than were males to most measures. Adherence also varied according to participant beliefs and COVID-19 risk category. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> These results indicate that adherence to physical distancing guidelines varies depending on the behaviour in question as well as socio-demographic and psychological factors. Although some non-adherence was evident for all physical distancing behaviours, adherence was generally high. Future interventions to improve adherence to physical distancing measures should target individual-level determinants of adherence in tandem with effective public health interventions. </ns4:p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.515
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.135 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207