7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      COVID-19 pandemic response behaviors: a Singapore experience of the “circuit breaker”

      brief-report

      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

          Preventive health behaviors such as hand hygiene are crucial amidst pandemics like COVID-19 but reports on nonadherence persist. This could be due to the lack of Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC), a cognitive-motivational construct known to improve health-related behaviors. Therefore, we examined the relationship between CFC and five behaviors—mask-wearing, social distancing, hand hygiene, excessive necessities buying, and COVID-19 information searching using an internet-based Singapore-wide survey conducted from April 20 to May 4, 2020. Behavioral differences 2 weeks before and after the state-wide confinement were examined using paired t-tests. Relationships between CFC and COVID-19 behaviors were examined using regression analyses adjusted for depression and anxiety. Participants were regrouped into three categories—increased behavior performance, maintained high performance, and maintained low performance where mean differences were analysed using MANOVA. Three hundred and thirty-six participants completed the survey (mean age, SD = 32.9 years [ SD = 12.6]; 38.7% males). CFCfuture predicted mask wearing ( B = 0.16; p < .05), social distancing ( B = 0.0.19; p < .01), hand hygiene ( B = 0.17; p < .01), and information searching ( B = 0.21; p < .001). CFCimmediate predicted hand hygiene ( B = 0.09; p < .05), excessive necessities buying ( B = 0.07; p < .05) and information searching ( B = 0.08; p < .05). Anxiety predicted excessive buying ( B = 0.08; p < .05) and hand hygiene ( B = 0.13; p < .01). Post-hoc test showed significantly higher CFCfuture ( p < .01) in participants who increased and maintained high behavioral performance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

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

          The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener.

          A number of self-administered questionnaires are available for assessing depression severity, including the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression module (PHQ-9). Because even briefer measures might be desirable for use in busy clinical settings or as part of comprehensive health questionnaires, we evaluated a 2-item version of the PHQ depression module, the PHQ-2. The PHQ-2 inquires about the frequency of depressed mood and anhedonia over the past 2 weeks, scoring each as 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("nearly every day"). The PHQ-2 was completed by 6000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients. As PHQ-2 depression severity increased from 0 to 6, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and healthcare utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-2 score > or =3 had a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 92% for major depression. Likelihood ratio and receiver operator characteristic analysis identified a PHQ-2 score of 3 as the optimal cutpoint for screening purposes. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. The construct and criterion validity of the PHQ-2 make it an attractive measure for depression screening.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection.

            Anxiety, although as common as depression, has received less attention and is often undetected and undertreated. To determine the current prevalence, impairment, and comorbidity of anxiety disorders in primary care and to evaluate a brief measure for detecting these disorders. Criterion-standard study performed between November 2004 and June 2005. 15 U.S. primary care clinics. 965 randomly sampled patients from consecutive clinic patients who completed a self-report questionnaire and agreed to a follow-up telephone interview. 7-item anxiety measure (Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD]-7 scale) in the clinic, followed by a telephone-administered, structured psychiatric interview by a mental health professional who was blinded to the GAD-7 results. Functional status (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-20), depressive and somatic symptoms, and self-reported disability days and physician visits were also assessed. Of the 965 patients, 19.5% (95% CI, 17.0% to 22.1%) had at least 1 anxiety disorder, 8.6% (CI, 6.9% to 10.6%) had posttraumatic stress disorder, 7.6% (CI, 5.9% to 9.4%) had a generalized anxiety disorder, 6.8% (CI, 5.3% to 8.6%) had a panic disorder, and 6.2% (CI, 4.7% to 7.9%) had a social anxiety disorder. Each disorder was associated with substantial impairment that increased significantly (P < 0.001) as the number of anxiety disorders increased. Many patients (41%) with an anxiety disorder reported no current treatment. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis showed that both the GAD-7 scale and its 2 core items (GAD-2) performed well (area under the curve, 0.80 to 0.91) as screening tools for all 4 anxiety disorders. The study included a nonrandom sample of selected primary care practices. Anxiety disorders are prevalent, disabling, and often untreated in primary care. A 2-item screening test may enhance detection.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19: health literacy is an underestimated problem

              Rapid development of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) into a pandemic has called for people to acquire and apply health information, and adapt their behaviour at a fast pace. 1 Health communication intended to educate people about the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and how to avoid getting or spreading the infection has become widely available. Most valuable information is created in an easy-to-understand manner that offers simple and practical solutions, such as washing hands, maintaining physical distance 2 , and where to find information about the latest recommendations, and advice. Unfortunately, there is also complex, contradictory, and false information. 1 Similarly, individuals are considered able to acquire, understand, and use this information in a sound and ethical manner—ie, to be health literate. However, the COVID-19 infodemic 1 has highlighted that poor health literacy among a population is an underestimated public health problem globally. For instance, in Europe, nearly half of adults reported having problems with health literacy and not having relevant competencies to take care of their health and that of others. 3 Health literacy is already seen as a crucial tool for the prevention of non-communicable diseases with investments in education and communication sought to be sustainable, long-term measures starting early in the life course. 4 However, when COVID-19 emerged rapidly, two aspects became striking. First, globally, health literacy is as important for the prevention of communicable diseases as it is for non-communicable diseases. Second, along with system preparedness, individual preparedness is key for solving complex real-life problems. In this pandemic, it is difficult, yet possible, to take the time to enhance health literacy because immediate action is required by governments and citizens. For countries to secure health-care services for the most susceptible individuals, many people have adopted policies that restrict physical contact by banning events, sizing limits for group gatherings, and even issuing stay-at-home orders. Governments and health authorities are pleading for individual responsibility in avoiding all unnecessary risks for infection with or spread of SARS-CoV-2. During these times, the discussion around human rights and personal freedom, democracy, social responsibility, and public health action are put to the test. Amid the pandemic, it is difficult to agree with the argument made by Wikler 5 that “if people know they are taking risks but accept them as the price of pursuing goals to which they assign higher priority, then it is not the business of public health to insist that health be valued above all”. 5 This argument might be true under different circumstances, but now, irrational behaviour in non-compliance with COVID-19 policies, which might be motivated by misperception of risks 6 or other personal priorities, allows a so-called free rider problem. 7 This issue has been widely discussed in the context of vaccination, 8 but it can also occur during the COVID-19 outbreak by deliberately neglecting precautions and protective behaviour. Most people act in a socially responsible way and with solidarity, thus creating a collective good of infection-free space and decreased infection risk. The so-called free riders enjoy the benefits themselves of others complying with the given policies (ie, decreasing risks) 7 ; however, they travel, hang around in groups, and ignore pleas for protective and preventive behaviour, feeling a false sense of invulnerability. 9 Nonetheless, as the risk of becoming infected is dependent on other people's compliance with the guidelines and the risk of others is dependent on commitment to joint efforts, unwillingness to contribute to collective good is unfair on other members of society.8, 10 In the COVID-19 pandemic, this behaviour does injustice, especially to high-risk groups, people with diseases, and the health workforce trying to treat these patient groups and save their lives. Health literacy might help people to grasp the reasons behind the recommendations and reflect on outcomes of their various possible actions. However, taking social responsibility, thinking beyond personal interests, and understanding how people make choices—aspects such as ethical viewpoints and behavioural insights—should also be considered within the toolbox of health literacy. Solidarity and social responsibility should not only be accounted for by the general population and decision makers, but also by those individuals who produce and share misleading and false information about SARS-CoV-2. The development of health literacy is even more topical than ever to prepare individuals for situations that require rapid reaction. Above all, health literacy should be seen in relation to social responsibility and solidarity, and is needed from both people in need of information and services and the individuals who provide them and assure their accessibility for the general population.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Transl Behav Med
                Transl Behav Med
                tbm
                Translational Behavioral Medicine
                Oxford University Press (US )
                1869-6716
                1613-9860
                08 March 2021
                : ibaa135
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore , Singapore
                [2 ] Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design , Singapore
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Han Shi Jocelyn Chew, jocelyn.chew.hs@ 123456nus.edu.sg
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4209-1647
                Article
                ibaa135
                10.1093/tbm/ibaa135
                7989181
                33693823
                78670404-9cd1-403e-b0f9-a3e9eb2158b1
                © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2021

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Categories
                Brief Report
                AcademicSubjects/MED00860
                AcademicSubjects/SCI02170
                Custom metadata
                PAP

                Neurology
                time perspective,covid-19,behavior,anxiety,depression,pandemic
                Neurology
                time perspective, covid-19, behavior, anxiety, depression, pandemic

                Comments

                Comment on this article