Early public adherence with and support for stay-at-home COVID-19 mitigation strategies despite adverse life impact: a transnational cross-sectional survey study in the United States and Australia.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Australia
/ epidemiology
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
Communicable Disease Control
/ methods
Cross-Sectional Studies
Disease Outbreaks
/ prevention & control
Female
Humans
Life Style
Los Angeles
/ epidemiology
Male
Mental Health
Middle Aged
New York City
/ epidemiology
Public Health
/ legislation & jurisprudence
Public Opinion
Quarantine
SARS-CoV-2
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States
/ epidemiology
Young Adult
COVID-19
Coronavirus
Insomnia
Mental health
Mitigation strategies
Pandemic
Public health policy
Qualtrics
SARS-CoV-2
Stay-at-home orders
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 03 2021
15 03 2021
Historique:
received:
06
05
2020
accepted:
08
02
2021
entrez:
16
3
2021
pubmed:
17
3
2021
medline:
7
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Governments worldwide recommended unprecedented measures to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As pressure mounted to scale back measures, understanding public priorities was critical. We assessed initial public adherence with and support for stay-at-home orders in nations and cities with different SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 death rates. Cross-sectional surveys were administered to representative samples of adults aged ≥18 years from regions with different SARS-CoV-2 prevalences from April 2-8, 2020. Regions included two nations [the United States (US-high prevalence) and Australia (AU-low prevalence)] and two US cities [New York City (NY-high prevalence) and Los Angeles (LA-low prevalence)]. Regional SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 prevalence (cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infections, COVID-19 deaths) as of April 8, 2020: US (363,321, 10,845), AU (5956, 45), NY (81,803, 4571), LA (7530, 198). Of 8718 eligible potential respondents, 5573 (response rate, 63.9%) completed surveys. Median age was 47 years (range, 18-89); 3039 (54.5%) were female. Of 5573 total respondents, 4560 (81.8%) reported adherence with recommended quarantine or stay-at-home policies (range of samples, 75.5-88.2%). Additionally, 29.1% of respondents screened positive for anxiety or depression symptoms (range of samples, 28.6-32.0%), with higher prevalences among those of younger age, female gender, and those in quarantine or staying at home most of the time versus those who did not report these behaviours. Despite elevated prevalences of adverse mental health symptoms and significant life disruptions, 5022 respondents (90.1%) supported government-imposed stay-at-home orders (range of samples, 88.9-93.1%). Of these, 90.8% believed orders should last at least three more weeks or until public health or government officials recommended, with support spanning the political spectrum. Public adherence with COVID-19 mitigation policies was highly prevalent, in both highly-affected (US, NY) and minimally-affected regions (AU, LA). Despite disruption of respondents' lives, the vast majority supported continuation of extended stay-at-home orders. Despite common support, these two countries diverged in stringent mitigation implementation, which may have contributed to subsequent outcomes. These results reveal the importance of surveillance of public support for and adherence with such policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and for future infectious disease outbreaks.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Governments worldwide recommended unprecedented measures to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As pressure mounted to scale back measures, understanding public priorities was critical. We assessed initial public adherence with and support for stay-at-home orders in nations and cities with different SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 death rates.
METHODS
Cross-sectional surveys were administered to representative samples of adults aged ≥18 years from regions with different SARS-CoV-2 prevalences from April 2-8, 2020. Regions included two nations [the United States (US-high prevalence) and Australia (AU-low prevalence)] and two US cities [New York City (NY-high prevalence) and Los Angeles (LA-low prevalence)]. Regional SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 prevalence (cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infections, COVID-19 deaths) as of April 8, 2020: US (363,321, 10,845), AU (5956, 45), NY (81,803, 4571), LA (7530, 198). Of 8718 eligible potential respondents, 5573 (response rate, 63.9%) completed surveys. Median age was 47 years (range, 18-89); 3039 (54.5%) were female.
RESULTS
Of 5573 total respondents, 4560 (81.8%) reported adherence with recommended quarantine or stay-at-home policies (range of samples, 75.5-88.2%). Additionally, 29.1% of respondents screened positive for anxiety or depression symptoms (range of samples, 28.6-32.0%), with higher prevalences among those of younger age, female gender, and those in quarantine or staying at home most of the time versus those who did not report these behaviours. Despite elevated prevalences of adverse mental health symptoms and significant life disruptions, 5022 respondents (90.1%) supported government-imposed stay-at-home orders (range of samples, 88.9-93.1%). Of these, 90.8% believed orders should last at least three more weeks or until public health or government officials recommended, with support spanning the political spectrum.
CONCLUSIONS
Public adherence with COVID-19 mitigation policies was highly prevalent, in both highly-affected (US, NY) and minimally-affected regions (AU, LA). Despite disruption of respondents' lives, the vast majority supported continuation of extended stay-at-home orders. Despite common support, these two countries diverged in stringent mitigation implementation, which may have contributed to subsequent outcomes. These results reveal the importance of surveillance of public support for and adherence with such policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and for future infectious disease outbreaks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33722226
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10410-x
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-10410-x
pmc: PMC7957462
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
503Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : K01 HL150339
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIOSH CDC HHS
ID : R01-OH-010300
Pays : United States
Références
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Sep 1;3(9):e2019686
pubmed: 32876685
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 May;30(5):582-7
pubmed: 25451989
Fam Med. 2005 Mar;37(3):193-8
pubmed: 15739135
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 9;382(15):e28
pubmed: 32187460
Am J Health Promot. 2021 Feb;35(2):301-311
pubmed: 33554624
J Biol Rhythms. 2020 Feb;35(1):98-110
pubmed: 31791166
Science. 2020 May 22;368(6493):860-868
pubmed: 32291278
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):533-534
pubmed: 32087114
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 06;17(5):
pubmed: 32155789
Int J Chronobiol. 1976;4(2):97-110
pubmed: 1027738
Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Jul;10(7):1206-12
pubmed: 15324539
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Apr;29(4):731-735
pubmed: 32066616
BMC Infect Dis. 2011 Jan 04;11:2
pubmed: 21199583
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):451-457
pubmed: 32298245
Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2012 Dec;6(4):121-7
pubmed: 25031113
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 1;180(7):1020-1022
pubmed: 32259192
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 19;17(6):
pubmed: 32204411
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Aug 14;69(32):1049-1057
pubmed: 32790653
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Dec 21;22(12):e24614
pubmed: 33302253
BMC Public Health. 2021 Feb 13;21(1):352
pubmed: 33581734
BJPsych Open. 2020 Oct 19;6(6):e125
pubmed: 33070797
BMJ Open. 2014 Mar 18;4(3):e004183
pubmed: 24643168
J Affect Disord. 2010 Apr;122(1-2):86-95
pubmed: 19616305
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Mar 1;94(3):210-4
pubmed: 26966332
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Sep 04;69(35):1198-1203
pubmed: 32881851
Thorax. 2011 Mar;66(3):213-9
pubmed: 21252389
Fam Med. 1998 Jul-Aug;30(7):508-12
pubmed: 9669164
BMC Res Notes. 2012 Jul 26;5:377
pubmed: 22830499
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920
pubmed: 32112714
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Feb 1;4(2):e2037665
pubmed: 33606030
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Jun 19;69(24):751-758
pubmed: 32555138
Br J Sports Med. 2011 Mar;45(3):203-8
pubmed: 20484314