For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
1
views
38
references
 Top references
cited by
3
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      58
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Facilitators and barriers to social distancing for young people during the COVID-19 pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Social (or physical) distancing is an important transmission-prevention behaviour that has been endorsed to minimize COVID-19 transmission. This qualitative study explores the facilitators of and barriers to social distancing for young people during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recognition that young people represent a unique demographic group, with differing psychosocial needs and experiences to other age cohorts.

          Methods

          Qualitative data was collected as part of a larger Qualtrics survey between July 28th 2020 and August 24th 2020. Eligible participants were young people living on the Island of Ireland, aged 16-25 years. The survey design was underpinned by the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation model of behaviour change (COM-B). Semi-inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse comments collected via three free-text survey items. The COM-B model provided a thematic framework to organise subthemes extracted.

          Results

          A total of N = 477 young people completed the survey, of which N = 347 provided comments for at least one of three free-text survey items. The majority of respondents lived in Northern Ireland (96%), the average age was 21 years, and most respondents were female (73%) and were students (81%). Key barriers identified included lack of environmental support for social distancing (lack of physical Opportunity to social distance), observing other people not social distancing (lack of social Opportunities supporting social distancing), and missing physical interaction from others (relating to the dissuading influence of automatic Motivational factors i.e. the influence of loneliness). Key facilitators included presence of clear and consistent environmental cues and availability of space to support social distancing (increasing physical Opportunity to social distance), increasing awareness and perceived consequences of risk of transmission (enhancing reflective Motivational factors i.e. perceived benefits (versus costs) of social distancing), and increasing opportunities to observe others’ adhering to guidelines (increasing social Opportunities supporting social distancing).

          Conclusions

          These findings suggest that the actions and endorsement of peers and the physical design of environments have a key role in influencing social distancing behaviour among young people living in NI. The COM-B factors identified in this study can inform the development of tailored interventions using models such as the Behaviour Change Wheel. The findings of this study suggest that intervention functions based on peer modelling and physical environmental restructuring and enablement should be priortitised, however it is imperative that interventions are co-designed with young people to foster collaboration and empowerment.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13325-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

          Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke (2014)
          Article 0 comments Cited 17389 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

            A Tong, P SAINSBURY, J. Craig (2007)
            Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Article 0 comments Cited 7923 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

              Derek K. Chu, Elie A. Akl, Stephanie Duda … (2020)
              Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p interaction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; p interaction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.
              Article 0 comments Cited 1744 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Emma Berry: E.Berry@qub.ac.uk
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Public Health
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Public Health
                Title: BMC Public Health
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2458
                Publication date (Electronic): 4 May 2022
                Publication date PMC-release: 4 May 2022
                Publication date Collection: 2022
                Volume: 22
                Electronic Location Identifier: 891
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4777.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0374 7521, School of Psychology, , Queen’s University Belfast, ; Belfast, Northern Ireland
                [2 ]GRID grid.4777.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0374 7521, Centre for Public Health, , Queen’s University Belfast, ; Belfast, Northern Ireland
                [3 ]GRID grid.502046.5, Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, , Northern Ireland Civil Service, ; Belfast, Northern Ireland
                Article
                Publisher ID: 13325
                DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13325-3
                PMC ID: 9067891
                PubMed ID: 35509096
                SO-VID: dc8dbee1-f42c-4b81-85e8-c5943c16d092
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2022
                License:

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                Date received : 19 January 2022
                Date accepted : 22 April 2022
                Categories
                Subject: Research
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2022

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health
                Keywords: health behaviour,physical distancing,young adult,covid-19
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health
                Keywords: health behaviour, physical distancing, young adult, covid-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content58

                See all similar

                Cited by3

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,074

                See all reference authors