Smith Louise E, West Robert, Potts Henry W W, Amlôt Richard, Fear Nicola T, Rubin G James, Michie Susan
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, London, UK.
Br J Health Psychol. 2024 Feb;29(1):3-19. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12684. Epub 2023 Aug 3.
We aimed to identify psychological factors associated with the use of facemasks in shops in England following removal of legal requirements to do so, and to compare associations with and without legal restrictions.
Repeated cross-sectional online surveys (n ≈ 2000 adults) between August 2020 and April 2022 (68,716 responses from 45,682 participants) using quota sampling.
The outcome measure was whether those who had visited a shop for essentials in the previous seven days reported always having worn a facemask versus sometimes or not at all. Psychological predictor variables included worry, perceived risk and severity of COVID-19 and the perceived effectiveness of facemasks. Socio-demographic variables and measures of clinical vulnerability were also measured. For the period following removal of legal restrictions, multivariable regression was used to assess associations between the primary outcome variable and predictors adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical vulnerability measures. The analysis was repeated including interactions between psychological predictors and presence versus absence of legal restrictions.
Worry about COVID-19, beliefs about risks and severity of COVID-19 and effectiveness of facemasks were substantially and independently associated with the use of facemasks. Removal of legal obligations to wear facemasks was associated with a 25% decrease in wearing facemasks and stronger associations between psychological predictors and wearing facemasks.
Legal obligations increase rates of wearing a facemask. Psychological factors associated with wearing a facemask could be targets for interventions aiming to alter rates of wearing a facemask. These interventions may be more effective when there are no legal obligations to wear a face covering in place.
我们旨在确定在英国取消戴口罩的法律要求后，与在商店使用口罩相关的心理因素，并比较有法律限制和无法律限制时的关联情况。
在2020年8月至2022年4月期间，采用配额抽样进行重复横断面在线调查（约2000名成年人）（来自45682名参与者的68716份回复）。
结果指标是那些在过去七天内去过商店购买必需品的人报告总是戴口罩与有时戴或根本不戴的情况。心理预测变量包括担忧、对新冠病毒的感知风险和严重程度以及对口罩有效性的感知。还测量了社会人口统计学变量和临床易感性指标。在取消法律限制后的时期，使用多变量回归来评估主要结果变量与预测因素之间的关联，并对社会人口统计学和临床易感性指标进行调整。重复该分析，包括心理预测因素与有无法律限制之间的相互作用。
对新冠病毒的担忧、对新冠病毒风险和严重程度的信念以及口罩的有效性与口罩的使用密切且独立相关。取消戴口罩的法律义务与戴口罩的比例下降25%以及心理预测因素与戴口罩之间更强的关联有关。
法律义务提高了戴口罩的比例。与戴口罩相关的心理因素可能是旨在改变戴口罩比例的干预措施的目标。当没有戴口罩的法律义务时，这些干预措施可能更有效。
