Search

ObjectivesPhysical distancing, defined as keeping 1–2m apart when co-located, can prevent cases of droplet or aerosol transmitted infectious diseases such as SARS-CoV2. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distancing was a recommendation or a requirement in many countries. This systematic review aimed to determine which interventions and behavior change techniques (BCTs) are effective in promoting adherence to distancing and through which potential mechanisms of action (MOAs).MethodsSix databases were searched. The review included studies that were (a) conducted on humans, (b) reported physical distancing interventions, (c) included any comparator (e.g., pre-intervention versus post-intervention; randomized controlled trial), and (d) reported actual distancing or predictors of distancing behavior. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. BCTs and potential MoAs were identified in each intervention.ResultsSix reports (with seven studies and 19 comparisons) indicated that distancing interventions could successfully change MoAs and behavior. Successful BCTs (MoAs) included feedback on behavior (e.g., motivation); information about health consequences, salience of health consequences (e.g., beliefs about consequences), demonstration (e.g., beliefs about capabilities), and restructuring the physical environment (e.g., environmental context and resources). The most promising interventions were proximity buzzers, directional systems, and posters with loss-framed messages that demonstrated the behaviors.ConclusionsThe evidence indicates several BCTs and potential MoAs that should be targeted in interventions and highlights gaps that should be the focus of future research.

BackgroundIndividual behaviour changes, such as hand hygiene and physical distancing, are required on a population scale to reduce transmission of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. However, little is known about effective methods of communicating risk reducing information, and how populations might respond.ObjectiveTo synthesise evidence relating to what (1) characterises effective public health messages for managing risk and preventing infectious disease and (2) influences people’s responses to messages.DesignA rapid systematic review was conducted. Protocol is published on Prospero CRD42020188704.Data sourcesElectronic databases were searched: Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO and Healthevidence.org, and grey literature (PsyarXiv, OSF Preprints) up to May 2020.Study selectionAll study designs that (1) evaluated public health messaging interventions targeted at adults and (2) concerned a communicable disease spread via primary route of transmission of respiratory and/or touch were included. Outcomes included preventative behaviours, perceptions/awareness and intentions. Non-English language papers were excluded.SynthesisDue to high heterogeneity studies were synthesised narratively focusing on determinants of intentions in the absence of measured adherence/preventative behaviours. Themes were developed independently by two researchers and discussed within team to reach consensus. Recommendations were translated from narrative synthesis to provide evidence-based methods in providing effective messaging.ResultsSixty-eight eligible papers were identified. Characteristics of effective messaging include delivery by credible sources, community engagement, increasing awareness/knowledge, mapping to stage of epidemic/pandemic. To influence intent effectively, public health messages need to be acceptable, increase understanding/perceptions of health threat and perceived susceptibility.DiscussionThere are four key recommendations: (1) engage communities in development of messaging, (2) address uncertainty immediately and with transparency, (3) focus on unifying messages from sources and (4) frame messages aimed at increasing understanding, social responsibility and personal control. Embedding principles of behavioural science into public health messaging is an important step towards more effective health-risk communication during epidemics/pandemics.

ObjectivesPhysical distancing, that is keeping 1-2m apart when co-located, can prevent cases of droplet or aerosol transmitted infectious diseases such as SARS-COV2. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distancing was a recommendation or a requirement in many countries. This systematic review aimed to determine which interventions and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are effective in promoting adherence to distancing and through which potential mechanisms of action (MOAs). MethodsSix databases were searched. The review included studies that were (a) conducted on humans, (b) reported physical distancing interventions, (c) included any comparator (e.g., pre-intervention versus post-intervention; randomised controlled trial) and (d) reported actual distancing or predictors of distancing behaviour. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. BCTs and potential MoAs were identified in each intervention. ResultsSix moderate or high quality papers indicated that distancing interventions could successfully change MoAs and behaviour. Successful BCTs (MoAs) included feedback on behaviour (e.g., motivation); information about health consequences, salience of health consequences (e.g., beliefs about consequences), demonstration (e.g., beliefs about capabilities) and restructuring the physical environment (e.g., environmental context and resources). The most promising interventions were proximity buzzers, directional systems and posters with loss-framed messages that demonstrated the behaviours. ConclusionsThe evidence indicates several BCTs and potential MoAs that should be targeted in interventions and highlights the gaps that should be focused on in future research.

Background: Public health teams need to understand how the public responds to vaccination messages in a pandemic or epidemic to inform successful campaigns encouraging the uptake of new vaccines as they become available. Methods: A rapid systematic review was performed by searching PsycINFO, MEDLINE, healthevidence.org, OSF Preprints and PsyArXiv Preprints in May 2020 for studies including at least one health message promoting vaccine uptake of droplet spread viruses. Non-English language studies and dissertations were excluded in line with using rapid review methodology. Included studies were assessed for quality using the MMAT or AMSTAR, and for patient and public involvement (PPI) in designing and/or conducting the research. Results: Thirty-five articles were included. Most reported messages for seasonal influenza (n=11; 31%) or H1N1 (n = 11; 31%) and only seven studies (20%) sampled vulnerable populations at higher risk of mortality/morbidity from viruses, e.g. older adults. Evidence from moderate to high quality studies for improving vaccine uptake included providing: information about virus risks, vaccination safety, and addressing misunderstandings about vaccination, vaccination reminders, detail about vaccination clinics and their locations, and mixed media campaigns at scale across hospitals or communities. Behavioural influences (beliefs and intentions) were improved when shorter messages, risk-reducing, or relative risk framing was used, the benefits of vaccination to society were emphasised, and beliefs about capability to be vaccinated and concerns among target populations (e.g. about vaccine safety) were addressed. Clear, credible, messages in language target groups can understand were found acceptable. Two studies (6%) described PPI in the research process. Conclusions: This review has identified effective messages to encourage vaccination and improve vaccination beliefs and intentions. Future campaigns should consider the beliefs and information needs of target populations in their design. Findings were inconclusive whether the medium through which the message was delivered, e.g. text message, affected outcomes. More high quality research is needed to demonstrate the behavioural outcomes of messaging interventions.

To determine patients' understanding and opinions about the usefulness of the informed consent (IC) document for cataract surgery and evaluate the deterioration in the effectiveness of verbal and written IC over time.Academic tertiary care center.Multiple-choice questionnaires addressing specific information about cataract surgery were distributed to patients. The questionnaires covered topics such as treatment, risk, and outcome probabilities (assessed preoperatively and postoperatively); terminology commonly used in IC; and patients' opinions about IC. Scores were calculated and compared using paired and unpaired t tests.Twenty-six patients thought that their legal autonomy would be waived by signing a consent form. Patients who took part in a standardized discussion of IC before testing scored 73.4% versus 23.4% in a control group who received no IC counseling (P.001). Patient recall of outcome probabilities significantly decreased between preoperative and postoperative testing (61.2% to 44.0%) when IC was given verbally but improved to 75.0% when patients were given written information to take home.Patients about to consent to cataract surgery had a reasonable grasp of basic terminology. A standardized IC discussion was effective in educating patients. Patients considered IC to be important and expected all pertinent information to be communicated. Patient recall of outcome probabilities was poorer than that of nonnumeric facts; however, memory decay may be slowed by providing supporting take-home literature.