Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Interventions to promote physical distancing behaviour during infectious disease pandemics or epidemics: a systematic review

  • Tracy Epton
    ,
  • Daniela Ghio
    ,
  • Lisa M. Ballard
    ,
  • Sarah F. Allen
    ,
  • Angelos P. Kassianos
    ,
  • Rachael Hewitt
  • University of Manchester
    ,
  • University of Southampton
    ,
  • Teesside University
    ,
  • University College London
    ,
  • Cardiff University
    ,
  • London Borough of Havering
Research Output: Contribution to journal Review article Peer-review

Open access

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well

Abstract

Objectives: Physical 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). Methods: Six 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. Results: Six articles (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. Conclusions: The evidence indicates several BCTs and potential MoAs that should be targeted in interventions and highlights gaps that should be the focus of future research.

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output: Contribution to journal Review article Peer-review

Original language

English

Article number

114946

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Social Science and Medicine (Volume 303, Issue 114946)

Publication milestones

  • Accepted/In press - 22/03/2022
  • Published - 26/03/2022

Publication status

Published - 26/03/2022

ISSN

0277-9536

External Publication IDs

  • handle.net: 10547/625409
  • Scopus: 85130781885
  • PubMed: 35605431