Relationships among COVID-19 Prevention Practices, Risk Perception and Individual Characteristics: A Temporal Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Data and Methods
3. Findings
3.1. Sample Profile
3.2. Bivariate Relationship between Prevention Behavior, Risk Perception, and Individual Characteristics
3.3. Logistic Regression on Different Prevention Practices
4. Discussions
5. Conclusions
6. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Quah, S.R.; Hin-Peng, L. Crisis prevention and management during SARS outbreak, Singapore. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 364–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leppin, A.; Aro, A.R. Risk perceptions related to SARS and avian influenza: Theoretical foundations of current empirical research. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2009, 16, 7–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wilder-Smith, A.; Freedman, D.O. Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: Pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. J. Travel Med. 2020, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romano, J.L. Politics of Prevention: Reflections From the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Prev. Health Promot. 2020, 1, 34–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tizzoni, M.; Bajardi, P.; Decuyper, A.; Kon Kam King, G.; Schneider, C.M.; Blondel, V.; Smoreda, Z.; González, M.C.; Colizza, V. On the use of human mobility proxies for modeling epidemics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1003716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wesolowski, A.; Buckee, C.O.; Engø-Monsen, K.; Metcalf, C.J.E. Connecting mobility to infectious diseases: The promise and limits of mobile phone data. J. Infect. Dis. 2016, 214, S414–S420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, M.H.; Rosenstock, I.M. Comparing social learning theory and the health belief model. Adv. Health Educ. Promot. 1987, 2, 245–249. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach; Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis): New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M.; Yzer, M.C. Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Commun. Theory 2003, 13, 164–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Man, S.S.; Chan, A.H.S.; Alabdulkarim, S. Quantification of risk perception: Development and validation of the Construction Worker Risk Perception (CoWoRP) Scale. J. Saf. Res. 2019, 71, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duong, H.T.; Nguyen, H.T.; McFarlane, S.J.; Nguyen, L.T.V. Risk perception and COVID-19 preventive behaviors: Application of the integrative model of behavioral prediction. Soc. Sci. J. 2021, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meloni, S.; Perra, N.; Arenas, A.; Gómez, S.; Moreno, Y.; Vespignani, A. Modeling human mobility responses to the large-scale spreading of infectious diseases. Sci. Rep. 2011, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, F.; Du, F. Tracking and visualization of space-time activities for a micro-scale flu transmission study. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2013, 12, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kraemer, M.U.; Yang, C.-H.; Gutierrez, B.; Wu, C.-H.; Klein, B.; Pigott, D.M.; Group†, O.C.-D.W.; du Plessis, L.; Faria, N.R.; Li, R. The effect of human mobility and control measures on the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Science 2020, 368, 493–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hotle, S.; Murray-Tuite, P.; Singh, K. Influenza risk perception and travel-related health protection behavior in the US: Insights for the aftermath of the COVID-19 outbreak. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 5, 100127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parady, G.; Taniguchi, A.; Takami, K. Travel behavior changes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan: Analyzing the effects of risk perception and social influence on going-out self-restriction. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 7, 100181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benita, F. Human mobility behavior in COVID-19: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 70, 102916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, G.J.; Amlôt, R.; Page, L.; Wessely, S. Public perceptions, anxiety, and behaviour change in relation to the swine flu outbreak: Cross sectional telephone survey. Bmj 2009, 339, b2651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tang, C.S.-K.; Wong, C.-Y. Psychosocial factors influencing the practice of preventive behaviors against the severe acute respiratory syndrome among older Chinese in Hong Kong. J. Aging Health 2005, 17, 490–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oh, S.-H.; Paek, H.-J.; Hove, T. Cognitive and emotional dimensions of perceived risk characteristics, genre-specific media effects, and risk perceptions: The case of H1N1 influenza in South Korea. Asian J. Commun. 2015, 25, 14–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harper, C.A.; Satchell, L.P.; Fido, D.; Latzman, R.D. Functional fear predicts public health compliance in the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2020, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pakpour, A.H.; Griffiths, M.D. The fear of COVID-19 and its role in preventive behaviors. J. Concurr. Disord. 2020, 2, 58–63. [Google Scholar]
- Qian, M.; Wu, Q.; Wu, P.; Hou, Z.; Liang, Y.; Cowling, B.J.; Yu, H. Anxiety levels, precautionary behaviours and public perceptions during the early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in China: A population-based cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e040910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majid, U.; Wasim, A.; Bakshi, S.; Truong, J. Knowledge, (mis-)conceptions, risk perception, and behavior change during pandemics: A scoping review of 149 studies. Public Underst. Sci. 2020, 29, 777–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, D. Modeling the spread of infectious diseases: A review. Anal. Modeling Spat. Temporal Dyn. Infect. Dis. 2015, 19–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, A.; Veres, P.; Burns, E.; Briggs, M.; Hamburg, R.; Kocevski, D.; Wilson-Hodge, C.; Preece, R.; Poolakkil, S.; Roberts, O. An ordinary short gamma-ray burst with extraordinary implications: Fermi-GBM detection of GRB 170817A. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2017, 848, L14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khalique, F.; Khan, S.A.; Butt, W.H.; Matloob, I. An integrated approach for spatio-temporal cholera disease hotspot relation mining for public health management in Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikler, A.R.; Venkatachalam, S.; Ramisetty-Mikler, S. Decisions under uncertainty: A computational framework for quantification of policies addressing infectious disease epidemics. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2007, 21, 533–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kashima, S.; Zhang, J. Temporal trends in voluntary behavioural changes during the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan. Public Health 2021, 192, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anderson, K.M.; Stockman, J.K. Staying home, distancing, and face masks: COVID-19 prevention among US women in The COPE study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bults, M.; Beaujean, D.J.M.A.; de Zwart, O.; Kok, G.; van Empelen, P.; van Steenbergen, J.E.; Richardus, J.H.; Voeten, H.A.C.M. Perceived risk, anxiety, and behavioural responses of the general public during the early phase of the Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands: Results of three consecutive online surveys. BMC Public Health 2011, 11, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pullano, G.; Valdano, E.; Scarpa, N.; Rubrichi, S.; Colizza, V. Evaluating the effect of demographic factors, socioeconomic factors, and risk aversion on mobility during the COVID-19 epidemic in France under lockdown: A population-based study. Lancet Digit Health 2020, 2, e638–e649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujii, R.; Suzuki, K.; Niimi, J. Public perceptions, individual characteristics, and preventive behaviors for COVID-19 in six countries: A cross-sectional study. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2021, 26, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betsch, C.; Korn, L.; Sprengholz, P.; Felgendreff, L.; Eitze, S.; Schmid, P.; Böhm, R. Social and behavioral consequences of mask policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 21851–21853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandman, P.M. Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations, Covello, V.T., McCallum, D.B., Pavlova, M., Eds.; Plenum Press.: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 45–49. [Google Scholar]
- Brankston, G.; Merkley, E.; Fisman, D.N.; Tuite, A.R.; Poljak, Z.; Loewen, P.J.; Greer, A.L. Socio-demographic disparities in knowledge, practices, and ability to comply with COVID-19 public health measures in Canada. Can. J. Public Health 2021, 112, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lyu, W.; Wehby, G.L. Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US: Study examines impact on COVID-19 growth rates associated with state government mandates requiring face mask use in public. Health Aff. 2020, 39, 1419–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haug, N.; Geyrhofer, L.; Londei, A.; Dervic, E.; Desvars-Larrive, A.; Loreto, V.; Pinior, B.; Thurner, S.; Klimek, P. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020, 4, 1303–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cvetković, V.M.; Nikolić, N.; Radovanović Nenadić, U.; Öcal, A.; K Noji, E.; Zečević, M. Preparedness and preventive behaviors for a pandemic disaster caused by COVID-19 in Serbia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wister, A.; Speechley, M. COVID-19: Pandemic risk, resilience and possibilities for aging research. Can. J. Aging/La Rev. Can. Du Vieil. 2020, 39, 344–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, M.S.; Serper, M.; Opsasnick, L.; O’Conor, R.M.; Curtis, L.; Benavente, J.Y.; Wismer, G.; Batio, S.; Eifler, M.; Zheng, P. Awareness, attitudes, and actions related to COVID-19 among adults with chronic conditions at the onset of the US outbreak: A cross-sectional survey. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020, 173, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ditekemena, J.D.; Mavoko, H.M.; Obimpeh, M.; Van Hees, S.; Siewe Fodjo, J.N.; Nkamba, D.M.; Tshefu, A.; Van Damme, W.; Muyembe, J.J.; Colebunders, R. Adherence to COVID-19 Prevention Measures in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Results of Two Consecutive Online Surveys. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, H.; Hu, R.; Yin, L.; Yuan, X.; Tang, H.; Luo, L.; Chen, M.; Huang, D.; Wang, Y.; Yu, A.; et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of the Chinese public with respect to coronavirus disease (COVID-19): An online cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, M.E.; Li, M.; Bouzaghrane, M.A.; Obeid, H.; Hayes, D.; Frick, K.T.; Rodríguez, D.A.; Sengupta, R.; Walker, J.; Chatman, D.G. Public transit use in the United States in the era of COVID-19: Transit riders’ travel behavior in the COVID-19 impact and recovery period. Transp. Policy 2021, 111, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teslya, A.; Pham, T.M.; Godijk, N.G.; Kretzschmar, M.E.; Bootsma, M.C.; Rozhnova, G. Impact of self-imposed prevention measures and short-term government-imposed social distancing on mitigating and delaying a COVID-19 epidemic: A modelling study. PLoS Med. 2020, 17, e1003166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bethlehem, J. Selection Bias in Web Surveys. Int. Stat. Rev. 2010, 78, 161–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duffy, B.; Smith, K.; Terhanian, G.; Bremer, J. Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2005, 47, 615–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teitcher, J.E.; Bockting, W.O.; Bauermeister, J.A.; Hoefer, C.J.; Miner, M.H.; Klitzman, R.L. Detecting, preventing, and responding to “fraudsters” in internet research: Ethics and tradeoffs. J. Law Med. Ethics 2015, 43, 116–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Study Variables | n (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Explanatory variables | |||
Gender | |||
Female | 321 (69.0) | ||
Male | 144 (31.0) | ||
Age | |||
18–34 | 171 (36.5) | ||
35–54 | 215 (45.8) | ||
55 and over | 83 (17.7) | ||
Household Income (before tax) | |||
$30,000-$49,999 | 178 (39.3) | ||
$50,000-$119,999 | 172 (38.0) | ||
$120,000 and over | 103 (22.7) | ||
Attitude towards public health intervention | |||
Conservative | 171 (43.3) | ||
Neutral | 147 (37.2) | ||
Not conservative | 77 (19.5) | ||
Risk Perception | Feb. | Apr. | June |
High | 126 (31.6) | 202 (50.6) | 170 (42.6) |
Medium | 135 (33.8) | 97 (24.3) | 156 (39.1) |
Low | 138 (34.6) | 100 (25.1) | 73 (18.3) |
Dependent Variables | Feb. | Apr. | June |
Wash Hands (Always) | 295 (73.0) | 387 (95.8) | 383 (94.8) |
Wear a Mask (Always) | 160 (39.9) | 348 (86.8) | 366 (91.3) |
Sanitize Objects (Always) | 137 (34.1) | 277 (69.1) | 256 (63.8) |
Cancel Social gathering (Always) | 167 (41.5) | 362 (90.3) | 320 (80.0) |
In-person Grocery Shopping (Reduced) | 198 (46.2) | 348 (81.3) | 321 (75.2) |
Feb. (Early Stage) | Apr. (Lockdown Stage) | June (Reopening Stage) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wash Hands | Wear a Mask | Sanitize Objects | Cancel Social Gathering | In-Person Grocery Shopping | Wash Hands | Wear a Mask | Sanitize Objects | Cancel Social Gathering | In-Person Grocery Shopping | Wash Hands | Wear a Mask | Sanitize Objects | Cancel Social Gathering | In-Person Grocery Shopping | |
Risk Perception 3 | |||||||||||||||
Low | 59.9 | 22.8 | 20.4 | 25.0 | 38.0 | 95 | 84.8 | 69.0 | 89.9 | 82.3 | 89.0 | 81.9 | 61.6 | 76.4 | 70.0 |
Medium | 74.8 | 43.7 | 38.5 | 49.6 | 52.3 | 91.7 | 79.2 | 66.7 | 90.6 | 77.7 | 94.8 | 89.6 | 60.8 | 76.6 | 80.8 |
High | 84.7 | 51.6 | 42.6 | 48.0 | 45.2 | 98.0 | 90.9 | 70.1 | 89.9 | 83.6 | 97.0 | 96.4 | 67.1 | 83.7 | 73.5 |
Chi-square | 25.3 *** | 38.0 *** | 29.1 *** | 30.3 *** | 5.6 | 12.9 * | 9.1 | 7.0 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 8.7 | 13.7 ** | 1.5 | 3.0 | 3.8 |
Gender 4 | |||||||||||||||
Female | 75.5 | 42.1 | 37.1 | 46.9 | 46.4 | 97.4 | 86.3 | 70.5 | 91.5 | 83.4 | 95.3 | 90.4 | 65.7 | 81.5 | 76.2 |
Male | 66.9 | 33.9 | 26 | 29.4 | 46.9 | 92.1 | 87.4 | 65.4 | 87.3 | 77.5 | 93.7 | 92.9 | 59.1 | 76.2 | 73.6 |
Chi-square | 3.3 | 2.4 | 4.8 * | 10.9 ** | 0.0 | 6.0 * | 0.1 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 0.3 |
Household Income 4 | |||||||||||||||
Low | 78.8 | 49.4 | 45.5 | 47.1 | 45.6 | 96.8 | 87 | 71.2 | 90.3 | 79.4 | 93.6 | 92.2 | 64.3 | 78.7 | 74.4 |
Medium | 68.5 | 37 | 28.1 | 37.7 | 50.9 | 96.6 | 89 | 69.9 | 90.4 | 84.2 | 96.6 | 92.5 | 66.4 | 79.5 | 77.2 |
High | 70.0 | 28.9 | 26.7 | 38.9 | 41.7 | 93.3 | 82.2 | 62.2 | 88.8 | 80.2 | 94.4 | 87.8 | 58.4 | 81.8 | 75 |
Chi-square | 4.6 | 10.8 * | 13.3 ** | 3.1 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
Age 4 | |||||||||||||||
<35 | 68.0 | 40.8 | 26.5 | 39.5 | 45.5 | 93.2 | 86.4 | 54.4 | 84.2 | 76.8 | 92.5 | 90.5 | 46.9 | 67.1 | 73.4 |
35–55 | 79.1 | 42.0 | 39.2 | 47.0 | 49.8 | 97.8 | 89.0 | 80.7 | 92.8 | 86.5 | 95.1 | 91.2 | 76.1 | 87.2 | 77.5 |
55 + | 68.0 | 32.9 | 36.5 | 32.4 | 37.8 | 96.0 | 82.2 | 69.9 | 95.9 | 76.7 | 98.7 | 93.2 | 67.6 | 87.8 | 72.6 |
Chi-square | 6.3 * | 1.9 | 6.0 * | 5.0 | 3.1 | 4.3 | 2.1 | 26.2 *** | 10.1 ** | 6.7 * | 3.9 | 0.4 | 30.4 *** | 23.8 *** | 1.1 |
Attitude Towards Public Health Intervention 4 | |||||||||||||||
Conservative | 74.9 | 43.3 | 35.7 | 43.9 | 47.1 | 96.5 | 90.6 | 71.9 | 94.1 | 83.3 | 97.1 | 94.7 | 65.5 | 85.5 | 78.1 |
Neutral | 70.5 | 34.9 | 31.5 | 42.5 | 46.9 | 97.3 | 87 | 67.1 | 91.8 | 86 | 95.9 | 89.0 | 61.6 | 80.1 | 78.2 |
Not conservative | 77.9 | 42.7 | 34.2 | 35.5 | 38.4 | 93.5 | 82.7 | 68.0 | 82.9 | 72.6 | 90.9 | 92.0 | 67.1 | 71.1 | 67.1 |
Chi-square | 1.6 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 8.3 * | 6.2 * | 4.7 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 7.4 * | 3.9 |
Wash Hands | Wear a Mask | Sanitize Objects | Cancel Social Gatherings | Reduce In-Person Grocery Shopping | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk Perception | |||||
High | 3.67 (1.97–7.06) *** | 3.98 (2.23–7.09) *** | 2.86 (1.57–5.19) ** | 2.88 (1.64–5.06) *** | 1.13 (0.67–1.91) |
Medium | 2.21 (1.26–3.85) ** | 2.87 (1.63–5.04) *** | 2.50 (1.40–4.47) ** | 3.123 (1.80–5.42) *** | 1.77 (1.07–2.95) * |
Low 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Age | |||||
Under 35 | 0.90 (0.46–0.74) | 1.22 (0.614–2.42) | 0.51 (0.26–1.02) | 1.25 (0.63–2.45) | 1.24 (0.66–2.34) |
35–55 | 1.46 (0.74–2.86) | 1.27 (0.65–2.49) | 0.94(0.49–1.82) | 1.66 (0.87–3.18) | 1.33 (0.71–2.46) * |
55 and over 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Household Income | |||||
Low | 1.86 (0.95–3.62) | 2.48 (1.34–4.57) ** | 2.57(1.38–4.78) ** | 1.52 (0.84–2.74) | 1.13 (0.64–1.99) |
Medium | 0.90 (0.48–1.69) | 1.34 (0.72–2.47) | 1.03 (0.55–1.93) | 0.91 (0.50–1.64) | 1.48 (0.84–2.59) |
High 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Gender | |||||
Female | 1.51 (0.90–2.54) | 1.57 (0.96–2.56) | 1.64 (0.99–2.73) * | 2.26 (1.38–3.70) ** | 0.96 (0.62–1.54) |
Male 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Attitude Towards Public Health Intervention | |||||
Conservative | 0.84(0.42–1.68) | 1.05 (0.57–1.92) | 1.07 (0.57–2.01) | 1.52 (0.82–2.82) | 1.45 (0.80–2.61) |
Neutral | 0.70 (0.34–1.39) | 0.82 (0.43–1.52) | 0.99 (0.52–1.88) | 1.57 (0.84–2.94) | 1.48 (0.81–2.69) |
Not conservative 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Wash Hands | Wear a Mask | Sanitize Objects | Cancel Social Gatherings | Reduce In-Person Grocery Shopping | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk Perception | |||||
High | 2.84 (0.53–15.05) | 1.95 (0.91–4.19) | 1.23 (0.65–2.32) | 0.89 (0.34–2.31) | 1.16 (0.57–2.39) |
Medium | 0.46 (0.11–1.95) | 0.72 (0.34–1.53) | 0.98 (0.52–1.87) | 1.13 (0.37–3.49) | 0.88 (0.39–1.96) |
Low 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Age | |||||
Under 35 | 0.35 (0.07–1.85) | 1.05 (0.44–2.49) | 0.52 (0.27–1.01) | 0.23 (0.07–0.81) * | 0.73 (0.31–1.62) |
35–55 | 1.53 (0.23–10.07) | 1.60 (0.67–3.80) | 2.20 (1.12–4.32) * | 0.60 (0.16–2.19) | 1.54 (0.68–3.51) |
55 and over 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Household Income | |||||
Low | 2.44 (0.54–10.99) | 1.31 (0.58–2.97) | 2.08 (1.10–3.91) | 1.70 (0.69–4.22) | 1.05 (0.49–2.23) |
Medium | 1.56 (0.35–6.96) | 1.37 (0.60–3.13) | 1.53 (0.83–2.83) | 1.48 (0.61–3.61) | 1.22 (0.57–2.63) |
High 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Gender | |||||
Female | 2.47 (0.77–7.96) | 0.834 (0.41–1.68) | 1.04 (0.63–1.71) | 1.43 (0.70–2.90) | 1.58 (0.87–2.84) |
Male1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Attitude Towards Public Health Intervention | |||||
Conservative | 2.22 (0.56–8.73) | 1.90 (0.84–4.29) | 1.23 (0.65–2.32) | 4.13 (1.65–10.35) ** | 1.85 (0.90–3.79) |
Neutral | 2.53(0.62–10.41) | 1.57 (0.71–3.47) | 0.98 (0.52–1.87) | 2.52 (1.05–6.04) * | 2.17 (1.03–4.59) * |
Not conservative 1 |
Wash Hands | Wear a Mask | Sanitize Objects | Cancel Social Gatherings | Reduce In-Person Grocery Shopping | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk Perception | |||||
High | 3.87 (0.98–15.26) | 5.82 (1.94–17.52) ** | 0.90 (0.47–1.72) | 1.35 (0.61–2.98) | 0.99 (0.50–1.96) |
Medium | 2.30 (0.65–8.13) | 2.06 (0.83–5.10) | 0.75 (0.39–1.42) | 0.89 (0.41–1.92) | 1.57 (0.76–3.23) |
Low 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Age | |||||
Under 35 | 1.2E−8 (4.3E−9–3.6E−8) *** | 0.43 (0.11–1.63) | 0.43 (0.23–0.83) * | 0.19 (0.07–0.48) ** | 0.65 (0.31–1.39) |
35–55 | 1.3E−8 (1.3E−8–1.3E−8) | 0.48 (0.13–1.83) | 1.63 (0.85–3.13) | 0.70 (0.26–1.86) | 0.88 (0.42–1.86) |
55 and over 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Household Income | |||||
Low | 0.50 (0.12–2.14) | 1.48 (0.53–4.13) | 1.63 (0.89–2.98) | 1.03 (0.47–2.24) | 1.03 (0.53–2.01) |
Medium | 0.87 (0.20–4.01) | 1.21 (0.45–3.26) | 1.54 (0.85–2.80) | 0.80 (0.37–1.72) | 1.12 (0.57–2.15) |
High 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Gender | |||||
Female | 1.31 (0.45–3.83) | 0.86 (0.36–2.05) | 0.99 (0.61–1.59) | 1.38 (0.78–2.45) | 1.20 (0.71–2.04) |
Male 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Attitude Towards Public Health Intervention | |||||
Conservative | 6.93 (1.78–26.98) ** | 1.99 (0.65–6.08) | 0.94 (0.50–1.74) | 3.71 (1.49–6.35) ** | 1.55 (0.80–3.0) |
Neutral | 2.86 (0.88–9.28) | 0.79 (0.28–2.20) | 0.84 (0.45–1.58) | 1.71 (0.85–3.42) | 1.55 (0.79–3.04) |
Not conservative 1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, L.; Yu, J.; Chen, D.; Yang, L. Relationships among COVID-19 Prevention Practices, Risk Perception and Individual Characteristics: A Temporal Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10901. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010901
Wang L, Yu J, Chen D, Yang L. Relationships among COVID-19 Prevention Practices, Risk Perception and Individual Characteristics: A Temporal Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(20):10901. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010901
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Lu, Jie Yu, Dongmei Chen, and Lixia Yang. 2021. "Relationships among COVID-19 Prevention Practices, Risk Perception and Individual Characteristics: A Temporal Analysis" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 20: 10901. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010901