COVID-19: Identifying and addressing determinants of adherence to physical distancing guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Optimising physical distancing measures has been a critical part of the global response to the spread of COVID-19. Adherence to these recommendations has been poorer than adherence to other key transmission reduction behaviours. The current project aimed to identify psychosocial determinants of adherence to physical distancing, and to determine whether Government of Ireland COVID-19 communications adequately address the determinants. Methods A nationally representative cross-sectional survey as part of the International COVID-19 Awareness and Responses Evaluation (iCARE) study, a qualitative interview study, and a content analysis of COVID-19 poster communications were conducted to identify psychosocial determinants of adherence and determine the extent to which these were addressed in government communications. Results The iCARE survey showed adherence to physical distancing measures varies by sociodemographic group (e.g., age, sex, COVID-19 risk category) and beliefs. Poorest adherence was reported by younger people, males, those at lower risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and those who were less concerned about the impact of COVID-19 on public health and the economy. The qualitative interview study revealed maintaining and negotiating close relationships, public physical environments, habituation to threat, risk-taking to maintain wellbeing, and confusion and uncertainty around government guidelines as barriers to physical distancing behaviour. Having a sense of personal responsibility and control over one's own behaviour was identified as a potential facilitator of adherence to distancing. Content analysis revealed some important gaps, particularly in terms of rationale for specific public health guidelines. Conclusions Though adherence was high overall, there was variability among sociodemographic groups. Government communications to promote physical distancing could be refined to better address key barriers and facilitators of the 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 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 | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".