COVID-19 measures in Belgium: how perception and adherence of the general population differ between time periods.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Belgium has been hit by a series of surges in the number of COVID-19 cases. Each of these resulted in more stringent measures being taken to curb the pandemic. This study compared perception of and adherence to COVID-19 measures of the Belgian population at two time periods: September 2020 (survey 1) and April/May 2021 (survey 2). METHODS: Two samples of approximately 2000 participants, representative for the Belgian population in terms of gender, age, province and socio-economic status, participated in an online survey. The survey questionnaire measured the perceived infection risk and severity, and the perception of and adherence to protective measures. Answers were compared between the time periods and risk factors for lower adherence were identified using multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: In survey 2, at which time the measures were more stringent, respondents assessed the risk of infection for themselves as lower, and for parents and grandparents as higher than in survey 1. Scores for understanding and usefulness of the measures were higher in survey 2 compared to survey 1, while reported past and future adherence were lower. Risk factors for a lower adherence were being male, being young, speaking French vs. Dutch, and having undergone a symptomatic infection. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to consider the potential effect of fatigue among the population with regards to measures that are sustained for a long time, especially regarding measures related to social contacts. The identified risk factors for lower adherence offer insights to policy makers for future crisis communication regarding COVID-19.

The Relation between Perceived and Actual Understanding and Adherence: Results from a National Survey on COVID-19 Measures in Belgium.

To reduce the spread of COVID-19 among the population, Belgium has implemented various infection prevention and control measures over time. This study investigated the extent to which understanding of the COVID-19 measures contributed to adherence, and which personal characteristics were considered risk factors for lower adherence. It consisted of a large online survey among a sample of the population (n = 2008), representative of citizens of Belgium in terms of gender, age, province and socio-economic status. The survey was conducted in September 2020, and included questions on perceived and actual understanding of COVID-19 protective measures in place during that time, as well as past and future adherence to those measures. The results showed that both perceived and actual understanding contributed significantly to past as well as future adherence. Risk factors for perceived understanding included being male and belonging to a younger age group, while risk factors for actual understanding were speaking French (versus Dutch) and belonging to a lower socio-economic level. Communication about COVID-19 measures should put more focus on trying to improve the understanding of the measures, instead of only making them known, particularly for those who are less health literate and as such at risk of poor understanding.

Determinants of adherence to COVID-19 measures among the Belgian population: an application of the protection motivation theory.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the Belgian government has implemented various infection prevention and control measures. This study assessed the extent to which the general population in Belgium adhered to these measures, and which determinants were associated with adherence. METHODS: We undertook an internet survey among a sample of the Belgian population, representative for sex, age, socio-economic status and province. The questionnaire included various demographic, socio-economic and health-related questions, and also drew upon the Protection Motivation Theory as a theoretical framework to measure levels of perceived severity, vulnerability, perceived usefulness of the measures (response efficacy), perceived personal capacity to adhere (self-efficacy), and past and future adherence. Data were collected in Dutch and French, the main languages of Belgium. RESULTS: Our study was carried out in September 2020, and the number of respondents was 2008. On average, respondents provided high scores for each of the measures in place in September in terms of response efficacy (range of 3.54-4.32 on 1 to 5 Likert-scale), self-efficacy (range of 3.00-4.00), past adherence (4.00-4.68) and future adherence (3.99-4.61). The measure that overall received the highest scores was wearing a face mask in public spaces, while 'the social bubble of 5' generally received the lowest scores. There was a statistically significant relationship between response efficacy and self-efficacy on the one hand and (past and future) adherence on the other hand, in a multivariate model corrected for confounders. Vulnerability and severity did not show statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Risk communication regarding COVID-19 should place a stronger emphasis on helping people understand why implemented measures are useful and how they can be put into practice, more than on increasing fear appeals.