MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197984317 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13295.2

Exploring barriers and facilitators of physical distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study

2021· preprint· en· W3197984317 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Farrell, Hannah Durand, Jenny McSharry, Oonagh Meade, Eanna Kenny, Chris Noone, Laura O’Connor, Kim Lavoie, Molly Byrne, Robert Mooney, Brian E. McGuire, Gerard J. Molloy

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersIrish Research CouncilHealth Research Board
KeywordsPandemicContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchDistancingThematic analysisPublic healthPsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthSociologyDiseaseGeographyMedicineNursingInfectious disease (medical specialty)Social science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Physical distancing measures (e.g., keeping a distance of two metres from others, avoiding crowded areas, and reducing the number of close physical contacts) continue to be among the most important preventative measures used to reduce the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, it is important to understand barriers and facilitators of physical distancing to help inform future public health campaigns. Methods: The current study aimed to qualitatively explore barriers and facilitators of physical distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic using a qualitative interpretative design. Semi-structured one-to-one phone interviews were conducted with 25 participants aged 18+ years and living in the Republic of Ireland between September and October 2020. A purposive sampling strategy was used to maximise diversity in terms of age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Analysis resulted in the development of six main themes related to barriers and facilitators of physical distancing: (1) Maintaining and negotiating close relationships; (2) Public environments support or discourage physical distancing; (3) Habituation to threat; (4) Taking risks to protect well-being; (5) Personal responsibility to control the “controllables”; and (6) Confusion and uncertainty around government guidelines. Conclusions: Physical distancing measures were judged to be more or less difficult based on a number of internal and external psychosocial factors. Barriers to distancing included difficulties maintaining and negotiating close relationships, habituation to COVID-19-related threat, risk compensation, and confusion and uncertainty around government guidelines. Having a sense of personal responsibility to prevent COVID-19 transmission through distancing was an important facilitator. The structure of public environments was viewed as both barrier and facilitator. Barriers and facilitators may vary depending on context and life stage, which should be considered in the design of interventions to target physical distancing behaviour.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.797
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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