Published in

Wiley, British Journal of Health Psychology, 1(27), p. 215-264, 2021

DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12542

Qeios, 2021

DOI: 10.32388/ojxd82

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Interventions to increase personal protective behaviours to limit the spread of respiratory viruses: A rapid evidence review and meta-analysis

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

PurposeIncreasing personal protective behaviours is critical for stopping the spread of respiratory viruses, including SARS‐CoV‐2: We need evidence to inform how to achieve this. We aimed to synthesize evidence on interventions to increase six personal protective behaviours (e.g., hand hygiene, face mask use, maintaining physical distancing) to limit the spread of respiratory viruses.MethodsWe used best practice for rapid evidence reviews. We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus. Studies conducted in adults or children with active or passive comparators were included. We extracted data on study design, intervention content, mode of delivery, population, setting, mechanism(s) of action, acceptability, practicability, effectiveness, affordability, spill‐over effects, and equity impact. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane’s risk‐of‐bias tool. A narrative synthesis and random‐effects meta‐analyses were conducted.ResultsWe identified 39 studies conducted across 15 countries. Interventions targeted hand hygiene (n = 30) and/or face mask use (n = 12) and used two‐ or three‐arm study designs with passive comparators. Interventions were typically delivered face‐to‐face and included a median of three behaviour change techniques. The quality of included studies was low. Interventions to increase hand hygiene (k = 6) had a medium, positive effect (d = .62, 95% CI = 0.43–0.80, p < .001, I2 = 81.2%). Interventions targeting face mask use (k = 4) had mixed results, with an imprecise pooled estimate (OR = 4.14, 95% CI = 1.24–13.79, p < .001, I2 = 89.67%). Between‐study heterogeneity was high.ConclusionsWe found low‐quality evidence for positive effects of interventions targeting hand hygiene, with unclear results for interventions targeting face mask use. There was a lack of evidence for most behaviours of interest within this review.