What predicts adherence to COVID-19 government guidelines? Longitudinal analyses of 51,000 UK adults
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
In the absence of a vaccine, governments have focused on social distancing, self-isolation, and increased hygiene procedures to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Compliance with these measures requires voluntary cooperation from citizens. Yet, compliance is not complete, and existing studies provide limited understanding of what factors influence compliance; in particular modifiable factors. We use weekly panel data from 51,000 adults across the first three months of lockdown in the UK to identify factors that are related to compliance with COVID-19 guidelines. We find evidence that increased confidence in government to tackle the pandemic is longitudinally related to higher compliance, but little evidence that factors such as mental health and wellbeing, worries about future adversities, and social isolation and loneliness are related to changes in compliance. Our results suggest that to effectively manage the pandemic, governments should ensure that confidence is maintained, something which has not occurred in all countries.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.19.20215376: (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. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable We estimated a separate RI-CLPM for each non-time-use measure defined above, using the full sample and also stratifying by gender as prior work shows some differences in compliance between males and females 28. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:However, this study also had …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.19.20215376: (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. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable We estimated a separate RI-CLPM for each non-time-use measure defined above, using the full sample and also stratifying by gender as prior work shows some differences in compliance between males and females 28. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:However, this study also had several limitations. First, we used a single generic item of self-reported compliance with COVID-19 guidelines. While the salience of the pandemic may mean individuals recall compliance well 50, responses may be influenced by social desirability concerns. Less compliant individuals are also likely to be less knowledgeable about COVID-19 guidelines and so may be unable to accurately judge their own non-compliance. Both of these likely bias towards finding smaller associations. Nevertheless, at a minimum, our results show that trust in government is related to compliance intentions. We also did not look at specific compliance behaviours, so future work could benefit from identifying what types of behaviours people are most likely to be non-compliant on. Another limitation of our study is the possibility of selection bias. We used data from a study set-up explicitly to research COVID-19. It is likely that individuals who participated in the study had a higher interest in helping tackle the pandemic than the general population at large. This interest may manifest as a higher propensity to comply with guidelines. Another issue is that government guidelines became less stringent across the study period. Participants may have been more compliant than reported if they were unaware of current guidance. It is notable that time spent seeking COVID-19 related information declined markedly through time (Supplementary Figure S1). Nonetheless, this study still p...
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.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.19.20215376: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement 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 We estimated a separate RI-CLPM for each non-time-use measure defined above, using the full sample and also stratifying by gender as prior work shows some differences in compliance between males and females 28. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
However, this study also had …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.19.20215376: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement 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 We estimated a separate RI-CLPM for each non-time-use measure defined above, using the full sample and also stratifying by gender as prior work shows some differences in compliance between males and females 28. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
However, this study also had several limitations. First, we used a single generic item of self-reported compliance with COVID-19 guidelines. While the salience of the pandemic may mean individuals recall compliance well 50, responses may be influenced by social desirability concerns. Less compliant individuals are also likely to be less knowledgeable about COVID-19 guidelines and so may be unable to accurately judge their own non-compliance. Both of these likely bias towards finding smaller associations. Nevertheless, at a minimum, our results show that trust in government is related to compliance intentions. We also did not look at specific compliance behaviours, so future work could benefit from identifying what types of behaviours people are most likely to be non-compliant on. Another limitation of our study is the possibility of selection bias. We used data from a study setup explicitly to research COVID-19. It is likely that individuals who participated in the study had a higher interest in helping tackle the pandemic than the general population at large. This interest may manifest as a higher propensity to comply with guidelines. Another issue is that government guidelines became less stringent across the study period. Participants may have been more compliant than reported if they were unaware of current guidance. It is notable that time spent seeking COVID19 related information declined markedly through time (Supplementary Figure S1). Nonetheless, this study still pro...
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.
About SciScore
SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
