Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Adherence to public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: the pivotal role of behavioural science

13.04.2021

Nina Schnyer, Stéphanie Baggio, Astrid Rossegger, Jérôme Endrass, Leonel Cunha Gonçalves, Jennifer Inauen

The pandemic caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has disrupted our everyday life, prompting us to change minor and major habits, such as the way we socialise. Many of us suffer from direct or indirect consequences. Some have lost loved ones, others have lost their job and their sources of income as a result of the economic backlash of the pandemic, women might be experiencing more violence than they did before [1]. Our personal freedom and self-determination have been restricted; we experience lower psychological well-being, more anxiety and depression; we might worry about social isolation [2, 3].

Evidence-based, effective strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19 are currently protective behaviours, including the uptake of a vaccine [4–11]. Early in the pandemic, the Swiss COVID-19 Science Task Force (henceforth Science Task Force) has advised the Swiss government to introduce protective behavioural public health measures, such as reducing physical contacts, physical distancing, self-isolation, quarantine, (digital) contact tracing, hygiene measures and wearing facemasks [12–14]. Since the approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine, the Federal Office of Public Health recommends its uptake, particularly for vulnerable population groups [15].

The Swiss government, advised by national politicians and scientists, is facing the difficult task of containing the spread of the virus through protective behaviours, preventing a collapse of the healthcare system and minimising the impact on the economy. Furthermore, the government has to consider the impact on personal freedom and the mental health of the population. In western democracies, restricting personal freedom is the last resort of elected officials. Executive orders are permanently being scrutinised and a substantial majority of the population has to accept them. Orders that are not accepted by a majority can lead to resistance, civil disobedience and unrest. The population’s voluntary adherence to these preventive public health measures, i.e., human behaviour, is key for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 [16, 17].

Behavioural sciences, including psychology, behavioural medicine, or behavioural economics provide pivotal knowledge on how to motivate and support people in changing and maintaining their behaviour. The World Health Organization and countries such as the United Kingdom have convened expert groups of behavioural scientists who provide evidence-based advice [18, 19]. In Switzerland, however, the systematic inclusion of experts in behavioural science is scarce. The objective of this brief article is to elaborate how behavioural scientists can support the government and the Science Task Force in their responses to the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland.

The role of human behaviour in COVID-19 prevention

Human behaviour is crucial for the successful handling of the pandemic at each level of prevention. At the primary prevention level, which aims to target a condition before it has evolved [20], behavioural science can help to understand and promote adherence to protective behaviours such as hygiene and physical distancing [21]. Furthermore, it can give insights into vaccine hesitancy, barriers towards the uptake of a vaccine and the reduction of both hesitancy and barriers [22]. At the secondary prevention level, which aims at early detection and intervention of a condition [23], it can contribute to adherence with testing, tracing (e.g., the use of the COVID-19 app), quarantine or self-isolation [24]. At the tertiary prevention level, which aims to alleviate symptoms, prevent the progression of a disease and subsequent disability after initial diagnosis [25], human behaviour is key to promoting rehabilitation through treatment adherence, and prevention of multimorbidity, for example, by self-management of mental health. In addition to population health, human behaviour is also key in maintaining health services, for example, by maintaining the health and well-being of hospital staff [26].

For most of us, the majority of COVID-19 preventive measures were new behaviours, disrupting our lifelong habits. For some, it might be difficult to maintain preventive behaviours for the extended period required [27–30]. The majority of the population seems to be willing to adhere to public health interventions, but actual adherence is much less common (also referred to as intention-behaviour gap) [14, 31–33]. Furthermore, not all interventions are equally accepted or complied with [34, 35]. In Europe, one example of relatively low acceptance is the use of mobile data for contact tracing [35]. In Switzerland in particular, almost 60% of the population (which equals to approx. 5.14 million people) expressed the intention to install the SwissCovid App, but to date only around 1.89 million apps are active [14, 36]. Another example might be the uptake of a vaccine, as vaccine hesitancy is high in Europe [37]. Even with a safe vaccine available and despite the public’s intention to be vaccinated, the intention-behaviour gap indicates that uptake might not be as high as might be hoped for [22, 38–40]. Currently in Switzerland, around 41% are willing to get vaccinated immediately and unconditionally, 24% are unwilling to get vaccinated and the rest is undecided [2]. Interestingly, around 55% of the population in Geneva agreed that vaccination should be mandatory [41].

How behavioural science can contribute to COVID-19 prevention

As human behaviour is key to successfully managing a pandemic, behavioural sciences provides pivotal insights into how to promote behaviour change (adoption and maintenance) at all levels of prevention. Health psychology and behavioural medicine, for example, aim to understand behavioural factors of illness prevention, health promotion and rehabilitation [42]. Health psychologists study psychosocial predictors that guide health-related human behaviour. Based on these models, they develop and evaluate evidence-based preventive interventions. Predictors of health-related behaviours (e.g., adherence to preventive measures) specified in behaviour change theory go beyond well-known and targeted factors such as risk perception. One evidence-based behaviour change model, the health action process approach (HAPA model) [43, 44], for example, defines risk perception as a basic, but often insufficient, predictor of health behaviour. To understand and promote behaviour, the HAPA model specifies further motivational and volitional processes along with risk perception. At the motivational stage, a person forms a behavioural intention (a decision to change or maintain their behaviour), which is determined by the person’s risk perception, their outcome expectancies (what will happen as an outcome of the behaviour) and their self-efficacy (the confidence in one’s ability to perform the behaviour). A motivated person will then be more likely implement the intended behaviour when they have detailed action and coping plans, and closely monitor their behavioural change or maintenance. These factors distinguish persons who adhere to protective pandemic measures from those who do not [45]. Targeting these behavioural determinants is a highly promising way to promote adherence. Yet public health communication is often limited to promoting risk perception alone, often with little effect.

The way forward: recommendations

We call for a systematic inclusion of behavioural scientists in the Swiss Science Task Force or other government advisory boards. New evidence regarding, for example, predictors of adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures emerge daily [46]. To best promote adherence, public information needs to consider these insights. It is not within the scope of this brief article to summarise this growing body of evidence exhaustively. However, to exemplify how evidence from behavioural science can inform long-term COVID-19 policy considerations, we conclude with some recommendations and examples for practice:

  1. Communicate via a trustworthy source in a relatable way. Public trust in government is important [14, 34, 47–50]. For example, humans have difficulty in understanding probabilities (percentages). Use natural frequencies instead [51]: one out of two people report tiredness or headache after the Pfizer-BioNTec COVID-19 vaccine [52]. A good example of communicating the transmission of aerosols was presented in the newspaper El País [53]. The newspaper painted the transmission of the virus via aerosols in three relatable, every day scenarios (bar, room or classroom) based on safety measures used (wearing of masks, ventilating space) and length of exposure. The article used easy-to-understand animations, graphics and language. Another example as a source of misunderstanding is exponential growth, a concept difficult for humans to understand. It is commonly underestimated, potentially leading to lower perceived benefit of public health interventions. However, communicating doubling times instead of growth rates and presenting data visualisation helps: every three days, the number of infected people doubles [54, 55].
  2. Unify messages across sources while communicating that new evidence might be associated with uncertainty and can change as we learn more [56]. For example, the basic reproduction number R. Media and government might fixate too much on it, disregarding the importance of other measures such as trends in numbers of new infections. R is an imprecise measure based on assumptions, does not capture the current state of the pandemic [57] and should be reported as such.
  3. Address concerns regarding public health interventions [35]. Adapt these messages according to changing concerns. For example in Switzerland, the SRG Corona-Monitor, currently in its sixth edition, offers important insights into public concerns regarding a variety of interventions and the well-being of the population [2]. Worries regarding social isolation have grown and could be addressed by promoting information on mental well-being [58, 59].
  4. Promote population-based health literacy and knowledge about the importance of concrete interventions [33, 60]. For example, health literacy and knowledge can be actively promoted via public health campaigns such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) campaigns in the 1990s in Switzerland and other countries [61].
  5. Repeat public health messages and repeat why public health interventions are important [62]. In psychology, there is a well-known mere-exposure effect [63]. It means that repetition leads to familiarity, which leads to preference. Therefore, repeating COVID-19 preventive measures is likely to increase adherence.
  6. Reinforce positive, health-promoting norms via models from the community [16]. People with a large outreach in social networks are often labelled as “influencers”. Given the number of social contacts, influencers are more likely than others to have witnessed or experienced new developments regarding the pandemic. Compared with anonymous public messages, reports of influencers regarding their personal behaviour modification are likely to have a more substantial impact on the behaviour of their followers on social networks.
  7. Enhance the population’s self-efficacy and personal control [11, 56, 64]. Self-efficacy can be promoted by facilitating mastery experience, for example, through guiding people to change their protective behaviour step-by-step, by learning from role models, or persuasion [65]. Self-efficacy plays a pivotal role when the content of the message evokes fear in the addressees, which can be the case when information regarding contagious diseases is distributed. In instances of low self-efficacy and a high level of fear, the reaction is more likely to be defensive and thus not compliant with public health guidelines [16].
  8. Use the term “physical distancing” instead of “social distancing” as the latter might imply cutting meaningful interactions completely [16]. This messaging helps emphasise that, although physical distance is necessary for slowing the pandemic, people can remain socially and emotionally connected to their loved ones [66]. Social interaction is important for our mental health and well-being, helping people to regulate emotions, cope with stress and remain resilient during difficult times [16]. This resilience is necessary to comply with the preventive measures and sustain the required behaviour change [67]. Fortunately, nowadays a range of technologies to stay socially connected exist (e.g., social networks, video and phone calls, emails and messaging), which can help to reduce the harmful effects of isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic [68].

The majority of the permanent residents living in Switzerland have never before faced such collective challenges as during this pandemic. Outlined evidence is largely based on the early stages of the pandemic, earlier epidemics in other parts of the world, or generic health behaviour change research. Changes in peoples’ perception and behaviour, and factors associated with these changes during the second, longer-lasting wave of the pandemic, need further research. For future responses to this pandemic, as well as responses to future public health challenges in general, it will be crucial that behavioural science disciplines are more comprehensively integrated in advisory boards, to ensure most effective response.

 

Nina Schnyer, Office of Corrections, Department of Justice and Home Affairs of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland

nina.schnyder[at]ji.zh.ch 

Stéphanie Baggio, Office of Corrections, Department of Justice and Home Affairs of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland

Division of Prison Health, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

Astrid Rossegger, Office of Corrections, Department of Justice and Home Affairs of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland

Department of Forensic Psychology, University of Konstanz, Germany

Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, Psychiatric Hospital of the University of Basel, Switzerland

Jérôme Endrass, Office of Corrections, Department of Justice and Home Affairs of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland

Department of Forensic Psychology, University of Konstanz, Germany

Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, Psychiatric Hospital of the University of Basel, Switzerland

Leonel Cunha Gonçalves, Office of Corrections, Department of Justice and Home Affairs of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland

Department of Forensic Psychology, University of Konstanz, Germany

Jennifer Inauen, Institute of Psychology, Department of Health Psychology and Behavioural Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland

 

References

  1. United Nations Women. The Shadow Pandemic. Violence against Woman During COVID-19. [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 25]. Available from: www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/in-focus-gender-equality-in-covid-19-response/violence-against-women-during-covid-19
  2.  Bosshard C, Bühler G, Craviolini J, Hermann M, Krähenbühl D. 6. SRG Corona-Monitor. 2021.
  3. Vindegaard N, Benros ME. COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;89(May):531–42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.048.
  4. Jüni P, Rothenbühler M, Bobos P, Thorpe KE, da Costa BR, Fisman DN, et al. Impact of climate and public health interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective cohort study. CMAJ. 2020;192(21):E566–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.200920.
  5. Jefferson T, del Mar CB, Dooley L, Ferroni E, Al-Ansary LAA, Bawazeer GAA, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: A Cochrane review. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2010;14:347–476.
  6. Saunders-Hastings P, Crispo JAG, Sikora L, Krewski D. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemics. 2017;20:1–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2017.04.003.
  7. Leung K, Wu JT, Liu D, Leung GM. First-wave COVID-19 transmissibility and severity in China outside Hubei after control measures, and second-wave scenario planning: a modelling impact assessment. Lancet. 2020;395(10233):1382–93. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30746-7.
  8. Pan A, Liu L, Wang C, Guo H, Hao X, Wang Q, et al. Association of Public Health Interventions With the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1915–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6130.
  9. Ferretti L, Wymant C, Kendall M, Zhao L, Nurtay A, Abeler-Dörner L, et al. Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests epidemic control with digital contact tracing. Science. 2020;368(6491):eabb6936. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb6936.
  10. Salathé M, Althaus C, Anderegg N, Antonioli D, Ballouz T, Bugnon E, et al. Early evidence of effectiveness of digital contact tracing for SARS-CoV-2 in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:w20457. doi:10.1101/2020.09.07.20189274.
  11. Pollak Y, Dayan H, Shoham R, Berger I. Predictors of non-adherence to public health instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74(11):602–4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13122.
  12. Salathé M, Althaus CL, Neher R, Stringhini S, Hodcroft E, Fellay J, et al. COVID-19 epidemic in Switzerland: on the importance of testing, contact tracing and isolation. Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150(11–12):w20225. doi:https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2020.20225.
  13. MacIntyre CR. Case isolation, contact tracing, and physical distancing are pillars of COVID-19 pandemic control, not optional choices. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(10):1105–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30512-0.
  14. Federal Office of Public Health. Tracing App des Bundes. Wissen, Einstellungen, Erklärungsfaktoren. 2020.
  15. Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Impfungen [Internet]. 2021. Available from: www.bag.admin.ch/bag/de/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche- epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/impfen.html#-536150532
  16. Bavel JJV, Baicker K, Boggio PS, Capraro V, Cichocka A, Cikara M, et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4(5):460–71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z.
  17. Michie S, West R. Behavioural, environmental, social, and systems interventions against covid-19. BMJ. 2020;370:m2982. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2982.
  18. Government of the United Kingdom. Independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 25]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/independent-scientific-pandemic-influenza-group-on-behaviours-spi-b
  19. World Health Organization. WHO convenes expert group for behaviour change [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 25]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/03-09-2020-who-convenes-expert-group-for-behaviour-change
  20. Reisig V, Wildner M. Prevention, Primary [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2021 Jan 25]. Available from: link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4020-5614-7_2759
  21. West R, Michie S, Rubin GJ, Amlôt R. Applying principles of behaviour change to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4(5):451–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0887-9.
  22. Williams L, Gallant AJ, Rasmussen S, Brown Nicholls LA, Cogan N, Deakin K, et al. Towards intervention development to increase the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among those at high risk: Outlining evidence-based and theoretically informed future intervention content. Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25(4):1039–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12468.
  23. Wildner M, Nennstiel-Ratzel U. Prevention, Secondary [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2021 Jan 25]. Available from: link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-5614-7_2760
  24. Smith L, Potts H, Amlot R, Fear N, Michie S, Rubin J. Adherence to the test, trace and isolate system: results from a time series of 21 nationally representative surveys in the UK (the COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses [CORSAIR] study). medRxiv. 2020;20191957. doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.15.20191957.
  25. Grill E, Reinhardt JD. Prevention, Tertiary [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2021 Jan 25]. Available from: link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-5614-7_2762
  26. Bettinsoli ML, Di Riso D, Napier JL, Moretti L, Bettinsoli P, Delmedico M, et al. Mental Health Conditions of Italian Healthcare Professionals during the COVID-19 Disease Outbreak. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2020;12(4):1054–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12239.
  27. Carpenter MJ, Jardin BF, Burris JL, Mathew AR, Schnoll RA, Rigotti NA, et al. Clinical strategies to enhance the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a review of the literature. Drugs. 2013;73(5):407–26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-013-0038-y.
  28. Tsai AG, Wadden TA. Systematic review: an evaluation of major commercial weight loss programs in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(1):56–66. doi:https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-1-200501040-00012.
  29. Moos RH, Moos BS. Rates and predictors of relapse after natural and treated remission from alcohol use disorders. Addiction. 2006;101(2):212–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01310.x.
  30. Kelly JA, St Lawrence JS, Brasfield TL. Predictors of vulnerability to AIDS risk behavior relapse. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59(1):163–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.163.
  31. Roma P, Monaro M, Muzi L, Colasanti M, Ricci E, Biondi S, et al. How to Improve Compliance with Protective Health Measures during the COVID-19 Outbreak: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model and Machine Learning Algorithms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(19):7252. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197252.
  32. Norman P, Wilding S, Conner M. Reasoned action approach and compliance with recommended behaviours to prevent the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the UK. Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25(4):1006–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12474. 
  33. Eastwood K, Durrheim D, Francis JL, Tursan d’Espaignet E, Duncan S, Islam F, et al. Knowledge about pandemic influenza and compliance with containment measures among Australians. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(8):588–94. doi:https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.08.060772. 
  34. Nivette A, Ribeaud D, Murray A, Steinhoff A, Bechtiger L. Non-compliance with COVID-19- related public health measures among young adults in Switzerland: Insights from a longitudinal cohort study. Soc Sci Med. 2021;268:113370.
  35. Sabat I, Neuman-Böhme S, Varghese NE, Barros PP, Brouwer W, van Exel J, et al. United but divided: Policy responses and people’s perceptions in the EU during the COVID-19 outbreak. Health Policy. 2020;124(9):909–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.06.009.
  36. Federal Statistical Office. SwissCovid App Monitoring [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 25]. Available from: www.experimental.bfs.admin.ch/expstat/en/home/innovative-methods/swisscovid- app-monitoring.html
  37. Larson HJ, de Figueiredo A, Xiahong Z, Schulz WS, Verger P, Johnston IG, et al. The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights Through a 67-Country Survey. EBioMedicine. 2016;12:295–301. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.042.
  38. Neumann-Böhme S, Varghese NE, Sabat I, Barros PP, Brouwer W, van Exel J, et al. Once we have it, will we use it? A European survey on willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(7):977–82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01208-6.
  39. Sheeran P, Webb TL. The Intention – Behavior Gap. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2016;10(9):503–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265.
  40. Velan B, Kaplan G, Ziv A, Boyko V, Lerner-Geva L. Major motives in non-acceptance of A/H1N1 flu vaccination: the weight of rational assessment. Vaccine. 2011;29(6):1173–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.12.006.
  41. Nehme M, Stringhini S, Guessous I; SEROCoV-POP Study Team. Perceptions of immunity and vaccination certificates among the general population: a nested study within a serosurvey of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (SEROCoV-POP). Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:w20398. doi:https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2020.20398.
  42. Matarazzo JD. Behavioral health and behavioral medicine: frontiers for a new health psychology. Am Psychol. 1980;35(9):807–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.9.807. 
  43. Zhang C-Q, Zhang R, Schwarzer R, Hagger MS. A meta-analysis of the health action process approach. Health Psychol. 2019;38(7):623–37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000728.  
  44. Schwarzer R. Modeling health behavior change: How to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Appl Psychol. 2008;57(1):1–29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00325.x.
  45. Beeckman M, De Paepe A, Van Alboom M, Maes S, Wauters A, Baert F, et al. Adherence to the Physical Distancing Measures during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A HAPA-Based Perspective. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2020;12(4):1224–43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12242. 
  46. Inauen J, Zhou G. Health and Well-Being in the Early Stages of the Covid-19 Pandemic: Insights from Applied Psychology. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2020;12(4):937–45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12245. 
  47. Chater A, Arden M, Armitage C, Byrne-Davis L, Chadwick P, Drury J, et al. Behavioural science and disease prevention: Psychological guidance. Leicester, England: British Psychological Society; 2020
  48. Arden MA, Byrne-Davis L, Chater A, Hart J, McBride E, Chilcot J. The vital role of health psychology in the response to COVID-19. Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25(4):831–8. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33108046. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12484. 
  49. World Health Organization. Survey Tool and Guidance. Rapid, simple, flexible behavioural insights on COVID-19 [Internet]. 2020. Available from: it.ubc.ca/services/teaching- learning-tools/survey-tool
  50. Wright L, Steptoe A, Fancourt D. What predicts adherence to COVID-19 government guidelines ? Longitudinal analyses of 51,000 UK adults. medRxiv. 2020;20215376. doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.19.20215376.
  51. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):741–4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741. 
  52. Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, Absalon J, Gurtman A, Lockhart S, et al.; C4591001 Clinical Trial Group. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(27):2603–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577. 
  53. Zafra M, Salas J. A room, a bar and a classroom: how the coronavirus is spread through the air. El País [Internet]. 2020; Available from: english.elpais.com/society/2020- 10-28/a-room-a-bar-and-a-class-how-the-coronavirus-is-spread-through-the-air.html
  54. Schonger M, Sele D. How to better communicate the exponential growth of infectious diseases. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0242839. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242839.  
  55. Podkul A, Vittert L, Tranter S, Alduncin A. The Coronavirus Exponential: A Preliminary Investigation into the Public’s Understanding. Harvard Data Sci Rev. 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.fec69745.
  56. Ghio D, Lawes-Wickwar S, Tang MY, Epton T, Howlett N, Jenkinson E, et al. What influences people’s responses to public health messages for managing risks and preventing infectious diseases? A rapid systematic review of the evidence and recommendations. PsyArXiv Prepr. 2020;1–19.
  57. Adam D. A guide to R — the pandemic’s misunderstood metric. Nature. 2020;583(7816):346–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02009-w.
  58. Dureschnufe. Isolation und Einsamkeit [Internet]. Plattform für psychische Gesundheit rund um das neue Coronavirus. 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 26]. Available from: https://dureschnufe.ch/
  59. Föderation der Schweizer Psychologinnen und Psychologen F. Covid-19: Wie Sie häusliche Isolation und Quarantäne gut überstehen [Internet]. Alle nützlichen Infos für die Bevölkerung und für Psychologinnen und Psychologen. 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 26]. Available from: www.psychologie.ch/covid-19-wie-sie-haeusliche-isolation-und- quarantaene-gut-ueberstehen
  60. Okan O, Bollweg TM, Berens EM, Hurrelmann K, Bauer U, Schaeffer D. Coronavirus- related health literacy: A cross-sectional study in adults during the COVID-19 infodemic in Germany. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15):5503. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155503.
  61. Noar SMA. A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns: where do we go from here? J Health Commun. 2006;11(1):21–42. Available at: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10810730500461059. Accessed August 10, 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500461059.
  62. Seale H, McLaws ML, Heywood AE, Ward KF, Lowbridge CP, Van D, et al. The community’s attitude towards swine flu and pandemic influenza. Med J Aust. 2009;191(5):267–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02781.x.
  63. Zajonc RB. Mere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001;10(6):224–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154.
  64. Sandell T, Sebar B, Harris N. Framing risk: communication messages in the Australian and Swedish print media surrounding the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Scand J Public Health. 2013;41(8):860–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494813498158.
  65. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.
  66. World Health Organization W. COVID-19. physical distancing [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 4]. Available from: www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19/information/physical-distancing
  67. Galea S, Merchant RM, Lurie N. The mental health consequences of COVID-19 and physical distancing: The need for prevention and early intervention. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(6):817–8. Available at: jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2764404. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562.
  68. Garfin DR. Technology as a coping tool during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Implications and recommendations. Stress Health. 2020;36(4):555–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2975.