Do predictors of adherence to pandemic guidelines change over time? A panel study of 22,000 UK adults during the COVID-19 pandemic
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
No abstract available
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.10.20228403: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.
Consent: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:This study had a number of limitations. Although we included a wide array of demographic and …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.10.20228403: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.
Consent: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:This study had a number of limitations. Although we included a wide array of demographic and personality variables in our models, results may still have been explained by unobserved confounding. However, given that the strength of some of the factors studied here differed across the pandemic (e.g. risk taking), it is questionable how confounding factors could have generated these temporal patterns. Second, participants self-reported their compliance with measures. Results may, therefore, have been biased due to social desirability concerns and due to differences in knowledge. People’s understanding of compliance may also have differed over time, particular as rules changed. We also lack detail on the specific rules – such as mask-wearing, social distancing or hand-washing – that individuals were breaking when reporting lower compliance. Some of the factors studied here may be important for some behaviours rather than others – for instance, extraversion is more plausibly related to violating social distancing rules than non-mask wearing. So future studies are encouraged that explore specific compliance behaviours in more detail. A final issue is the use of a non-random sample. While the sample was heterogeneous and we included population weights in models, the data were from a study set-up explicitly to research COVID-19. It is likely that individuals who participated (and continued to participate) in the study had a higher interest in helping tackle the pandemic than the gene...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
