Abstract
Objectives: To investigate: 1) definitions of self-isolation used during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2) measures used to quantify adherence and their reliability, validity, and acceptability, 3) rates of self-isolation adherence, and 4) factors associated with adherence.
Study design: Systematic review following PRISMA and SWiM guidelines (PROSPERO record CRD42022377820).
Methods: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, PsyArXiv, medRxiv, and grey literature sources were searched (1 January 2020 to 13 December 2022) using terms related to COVID-19, isolation, and adherence. Studies were included if they contained original, quantitative data of self-isolation adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic. We extracted definitions of self-isolation, measures used to quantify adherence, adherence rates, and factors associated with adherence.
Results: We included 45 studies. Self-isolation was inconsistently defined. Four studies did not use self-report measures. Of 41 studies using self-report, one reported reliability; another gave indirect evidence for lack of validity of the measure. Rates of adherence to self-isolation for studies with only some concerns of bias were 51% to 86% for COVID-19 cases, 78% to 94% for contacts, and 16% for people with COVID-19-like symptoms. There was little evidence that self-isolation adherence was associated with socio-demographic or psychological factors.
Conclusions: There was no consensus in defining, operationalising, or measuring self-isolation, resulting in significant risk of bias in included studies. Future definitions of self-isolation should state behaviours to be enacted and duration. People recommended to self-isolate should be given support. Public health campaigns should aim to increase perceived effectiveness of self-isolation and promote accurate information about susceptibility to infection.
Study design: Systematic review following PRISMA and SWiM guidelines (PROSPERO record CRD42022377820).
Methods: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, PsyArXiv, medRxiv, and grey literature sources were searched (1 January 2020 to 13 December 2022) using terms related to COVID-19, isolation, and adherence. Studies were included if they contained original, quantitative data of self-isolation adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic. We extracted definitions of self-isolation, measures used to quantify adherence, adherence rates, and factors associated with adherence.
Results: We included 45 studies. Self-isolation was inconsistently defined. Four studies did not use self-report measures. Of 41 studies using self-report, one reported reliability; another gave indirect evidence for lack of validity of the measure. Rates of adherence to self-isolation for studies with only some concerns of bias were 51% to 86% for COVID-19 cases, 78% to 94% for contacts, and 16% for people with COVID-19-like symptoms. There was little evidence that self-isolation adherence was associated with socio-demographic or psychological factors.
Conclusions: There was no consensus in defining, operationalising, or measuring self-isolation, resulting in significant risk of bias in included studies. Future definitions of self-isolation should state behaviours to be enacted and duration. People recommended to self-isolate should be given support. Public health campaigns should aim to increase perceived effectiveness of self-isolation and promote accurate information about susceptibility to infection.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 224-235 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Public Health |
| Volume | 234 |
| Early online date | 6 Jul 2024 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 30 Sept 2024 |
Keywords
- Adherence
- COVID-19
- Definitions
- Factors associated
- Isolation
- Measures
- Quarantine
