Kantor Bella Nichole, Kantor Jonathan
Harvard Extension School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Center for Global Health, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Jul 3;7:384. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00384. eCollection 2020.
Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) represent the primary mitigation strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this, many government agencies and members of the general public may be resistant to NPI adoption. We sought to understand public attitudes and beliefs regarding various NPIs and self-reported adoption of NPIs, and to explore associations between NPI performance and the baseline characteristics of respondents. We performed a cross-sectional age-, sex-, and race- stratified survey of the general US population. Of the 1,005 respondents, 37% (95% CI 34.0, 39.9) felt that NPIs were inconvenient, while only 0.9% (95% CI 0.3, 1.5) of respondents believed that NPIs would reduce their personal risk of illness. Respondents were most uncertain regarding the efficacy of mask and eye protection use, with 30.6 and 22.1%, respectively, unsure whether their use would slow disease spread. On univariate logistic regression analyses, NPI adherence was associated with a belief that NPIs would reduce personal risk of developing COVID-19 [OR 3.06, 95% CI [1.25, 7.48], = 0.014] and with a belief that NPIs were difficult to perform [OR 1.79, 95% CI [1.38, 2.31], < 0.0001]. Respondents were compliant with straightforward, familiar, and heavily-encouraged NPI recommendations such as hand-washing; more onerous approaches, such as avoiding face touching, disinfecting surfaces, and wearing masks or goggles, were performed less frequently. NPI non-adherence is associated with both outcome expectations (belief that NPIs are effective) and process expectations (belief that NPIs are not overly inconvenient); these findings have important implications for designing public health outreach efforts, where the feasibility, as well as the effectiveness, of NPIs should be stressed.
非药物干预措施（NPIs）是应对新冠疫情的主要缓解策略。尽管如此，许多政府机构和普通民众可能抵制采用非药物干预措施。我们试图了解公众对各种非药物干预措施的态度和看法以及自我报告的采用情况，并探讨非药物干预措施的实施情况与受访者基线特征之间的关联。我们对美国普通人群进行了一项按年龄、性别和种族分层的横断面调查。在1005名受访者中，37%（95%置信区间34.0，39.9）认为非药物干预措施不方便，而只有0.9%（95%置信区间0.3，1.5）的受访者认为非药物干预措施会降低他们个人患病风险。受访者对佩戴口罩和眼部防护措施的效果最为不确定，分别有30.6%和22.1%的人不确定其使用是否会减缓疾病传播。在单因素逻辑回归分析中，非药物干预措施的依从性与认为非药物干预措施会降低感染新冠风险的信念相关[比值比3.06，95%置信区间[1.25，7.48]，P = 0.014]，也与认为非药物干预措施难以实施的信念相关[比值比1.79，95%置信区间[1.38，2.31]，P < 0.0001]。受访者会遵守诸如洗手等直接、熟悉且大力倡导的非药物干预措施建议；而诸如避免触摸脸部、对表面进行消毒以及佩戴口罩或护目镜等更繁琐的措施执行频率较低。不采用非药物干预措施与结果预期（认为非药物干预措施有效）和过程预期（认为非药物干预措施不会过于不便）均相关；这些发现对设计公共卫生宣传工作具有重要意义，在宣传中应强调非药物干预措施的可行性以及有效性。
