King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, United Kingdom; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, United Kingdom; UK Health Security Agency, Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, United Kingdom.
King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, United Kingdom; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, United Kingdom.
Public Health. 2024 Sep;234:224-235. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2024.05.030. Epub 2024 Jul 6.
This study aimed 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.
This was a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO record CRD42022377820).
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.
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 the lack of validity of the measure. Rates of adherence to self-isolation for studies with only some concerns of bias were 51%-86% for COVID-19 cases, 78%-94% for contacts, and 16% for people with COVID-19-like symptoms. There was little evidence that self-isolation adherence was associated with sociodemographic or psychological factors.
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.
本研究旨在调查：（1）在 COVID-19 大流行期间使用的自我隔离定义；（2）用于量化依从性的措施及其可靠性、有效性和可接受性；（3）自我隔离依从率；以及（4）与依从性相关的因素。
本研究是一项系统评价，遵循系统评价和荟萃分析以及无荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南（PROSPERO 记录 CRD42022377820）。
使用与 COVID-19、隔离和依从性相关的术语，对 MEDLINE、PsycINFO、Embase、Web of Science、 PsyArXiv、medRxiv 和灰色文献来源进行了搜索（2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 12 月 13 日）。如果研究包含 COVID-19 大流行期间自我隔离依从性的原始定量数据，则将其纳入研究。我们提取了自我隔离的定义、用于量化依从性的措施、依从率以及与依从性相关的因素。
我们纳入了 45 项研究。自我隔离的定义不一致。四项研究未使用自我报告措施。在使用自我报告的 41 项研究中，一项报告了可靠性；另一项则提供了该措施缺乏有效性的间接证据。对于仅有部分偏倚风险的研究，COVID-19 病例的自我隔离依从率为 51%-86%，接触者为 78%-94%，COVID-19 样症状患者为 16%。几乎没有证据表明自我隔离的依从性与社会人口统计学或心理因素有关。
在定义、操作或测量自我隔离方面没有共识，这导致纳入研究存在显著的偏倚风险。未来自我隔离的定义应该说明要采取的行为和持续时间。建议自我隔离的人应得到支持。公共卫生宣传活动应旨在提高自我隔离的有效性感知，并促进有关感染易感性的准确信息。
