Determinants of adherence to COVID-19 preventive behaviours in Canada: Results from the iCARE Study

  1. Kim L. Lavoie
  2. Vincent Gosselin-Boucher
  3. Jovana Stojanovic
  4. Brigitte Voisard
  5. Geneviève Szczepanik
  6. Jacqueline A. Boyle
  7. Ariane Belanger-Gravel
  8. Simon L. Bacon
  9. for the iCARE Study Team

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

Key to slowing the spread of SARS-Cov-2 is adherence to preventive behaviours promoted through government policies, which may be influenced by policy awareness, attitudes and concerns about the virus and its impacts. This study assessed determinants of adherence to major coronavirus preventive behaviours, including demographics, attitudes and concerns, among Canadians during the first pandemic wave.

Methods

As part of the iCARE study ( www.iCAREstudy.com ), we weighted data from two population-based, online surveys (April and June, 2020) of Canadian adults. Questions tapped into behaviour change constructs. Multivariate regression models identified determinants of adherence.

Results

Data from 6,008 respondents (51% female) were weighted for age, sex, and province. Awareness of government policies was high at both time points (80-99%), and adherence to prevention behaviours was high in April (87.5%-93.5%) but decreased over time, particularly for avoiding social gatherings (68.1%). Adherence was worse among men, those aged 25 and under, and those currently working. Aligned with the Health Beliefs Model, perceptions of the importance of prevention behaviours and the nature of people’s COVID-19-related concerns were highly predictive of adherence. Interestingly, health and social/economic concerns predicted better adherence, but having greater personal financial concerns predicted worse adherence at both time points.

Conclusion

Adherence to COVID-19 prevention behaviours was worse among men, younger adults, and workers, and deteriorated over time. Perceived importance of prevention behaviours measures and health and social/economic concerns predicted better adherence, but personal financial concerns predicted worse adherence. Results have implications for tailoring policy and communication strategies during subsequent pandemic waves.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.09.21258634: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationTwo thirds of the panel were recruited randomly by telephone, with the remainder recruited via publicity and social media.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations and strengths: This study should be interpreted in light of some methodological limitations. First, although we analysed and weighted large, representative samples of Canadians with representation across age, sex, and province, the absolute number of participants in certain provinces (e.g., Atlantic) was lower, making some inter-provincial comparisons unadvisable. Second, the survey was only available in English and French, which may have led to an underrepresentation of certain non-native English or French speaking groups. Further, our survey included a higher proportion of university-educated individuals, though relatively few assessed themselves to be in the top income tercile. As such, results might not generalize as well to less educated or those from the highest income group. Third, since the survey was voluntary, and participants were drawn from a polling firm’s subject pool, participation may have been subject to some degree of selection bias, though applying the National weightings accounts for some of this, it can never fully remove bias. Finally, data were self-reported, which may have been subject to social desirability bias,41 though this may have been mitigated by the fact that the survey was completely anonymous and did not collect any personal identifiable information. Despite some limitations, this study also had a number of important strengths. The survey was designed based on established theories of behaviour change (Health Beliefs Model and COM...

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.09.21258634v1 on medRxiv