ABSTRACT
ObjectivePublic cooperation to practice preventive health behaviours is essential to manage the transmission of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. We aimed to investigate beliefs about COVID-19 diagnosis, transmission and prevention that have the potential to impact the uptake of recommended public health strategies. DesignAn online cross-sectional survey conducted May 8 to May 11 2020. ParticipantsA national sample of 1500 Australian adults with representative quotas for age and gender provided by online panel provider. Main outcome measureProportion of participants with correct/incorrect knowledge of COVID-19 preventive behaviours and reasons for misconceptions. ResultsOf the 1802 potential participants contacted, 289 were excluded, 13 declined, and 1500 participated in the survey (response rate 83%). Most participants correctly identified "washing your hands regularly with soap and water" (92%) and "staying at least 1.5m away from others" (90%) could help prevent COVID-19. Over 40% (incorrectly) considered wearing gloves outside of the home would prevent them contracting COVID-19. Views about face masks were divided. Only 66% of participants correctly identified that "regular use of antibiotics" would not prevent COVID-19. Most participants (90%) identified "fever, fatigue and cough" as indicators of COVID-19. However, 42% of participants thought that being unable to "hold your breath for 10 seconds without coughing" was an indicator of having the virus. The most frequently reported sources of COVID-19 information were commercial television channels (56%), the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (43%), and the Australian Government COVID-19 information app (31%). ConclusionsPublic messaging about hand hygiene and physical distancing to prevent transmission appear to have been effective. However, there are clear, identified barriers for many individuals that have the potential to impede uptake or maintenance of these behaviours in the long-term. Currently these non-drug interventions are our only effective strategy to combat this pandemic. Ensuring ongoing adherence to is critical. What is already known on this topicO_LIThe current strategies to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 are behavioural (hand hygiene, physical distancing, quarantining and testing if symptomatic) and rely on the public knowledge and subsequent practice of these strategies. C_LIO_LIPrevious research has demonstrated a good level of public knowledge of COVID-19 symptoms and preventive behaviours but a wide variation in practicing the recommended behaviours. C_LIO_LIAlthough knowledge can facilitate behaviour change, knowledge alone is insufficient to reliably change behaviour to the widespread extent require to combat health crises. C_LI What this study addsO_LIParticipants reveal confusion about whether wearing masks will reduce transmission, apprehension about attending health services, and perceptions that antibiotics and alternative remedies (such as essential oils) prevent transmission. C_LIO_LIAnalysis of why participants hold these beliefs revealed two dominant themes: an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of how COVID-19 is transmitted, and the belief that the behaviours were unnecessary. C_LIO_LIThis study underlines the necessity to not only target public messaging at effective preventative behaviours, but enhance behaviour change by clearly explaining why each behaviour is important. C_LI
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs), and assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI), or influenza events. Methods: Systematic review of randomised trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI, or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences. Searches were conducted in CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and trial registries (April 2020) and data extraction completed by independent pairs of reviewers. Results: Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.23, 95%CI 0.78-1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.71-0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared to the soap group; two found no significant difference between the intervention arms. Conclusion: Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission, however direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.