Search

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic, caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is face covering. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of face covering. Objectives: We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to face covering aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID‐19. Search Methods: We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL & Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health‐Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with face covering, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021. Selection Criteria: Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full‐text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team. Data Collection and Analysis: All data extraction was managed in EPPI‐Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full‐text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross‐sectional studies. Main Results: Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 23 were included in this review. The included studies were cross‐sectional in design, came from nine countries and had a combined sample of 54,401 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with five of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of 10 of the studies was rated as unclear, 10 were rated as low, and 3 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Ten studies were included in the meta‐analysis and 16 in the narrative synthesis. Findings from the meta‐analysis indicated that knowledge of COVID‐19 (0.341, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06, 0.530, I2 = 100%) was the malleable determinant most associated with face covering behaviour. Perceived susceptibility of COVID‐19 (r = 0.088, 95% CI = −0.004, 0.180, I2 = 80%) and COVID‐related worry and anxiety (r = 0.064, 95% CI = −0.066, 0.191, I2 = 93% had little to no effect on face covering behaviour. In the narrative synthesis, the strongest association was found between perceived benefits and effectiveness of behaviours and mask wearing behaviour. Authors' Conclusions: Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID‐related face covering can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote face covering behaviour in potential new waves of COVID‐19 or other respiratory infections. Knowledge of COVID and perceived benefits of face coverings warrant further consideration in future research and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic, caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is frequent handwashing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of handwashing. Objectives: We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to handwashing aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID‐19. Search Methods: We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID‐19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health‐Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with handwashing, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021. Selection Criteria: Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full‐text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team. Data Collection and Analysis: All data extraction was managed in EPPI‐Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full‐text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross‐sectional studies. Main Results: Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 56 studies were included in this review. The included studies were cross sectional in design, came from 22 countries and had a combined sample of 199,376 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with eight of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of the majority of the studies was good (n = 30 rated low risk of bias), with 8 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Thirty‐four studies were included in the narrative synthesis and 28 in the meta‐analysis. Findings indicated that emotions about COVID‐19 (worry [0.381, confidence interval [CI] = 0.270–0.482, I2 = 92%) and anxiety (0.308, CI = 0.154–0.448, I2 = 91%]), knowledge of COVID‐19 (0.323, CI = 0.223–0.417, I2 = 94%), and perceived social norms (0.303, CI = 0.184–0.413, I2 = 92%) were among the malleable determinants most associated with handwashing. Perceived severity (0.006, CI = ‐0.011–0.023) and susceptibility of COVID‐19 (0.041, CI = −0.034 to 0.115) had little to no effect on handwashing behaviour. Authors' Conclusions: Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID‐related handwashing can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote handwashing behaviour in potential new waves of COVID‐19 or other respiratory infections. Emotions about COVID, knowledge of COVID and perceived social norms warrant further consideration in future research and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]