ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To explore the perceptions of non-adherence to COVID-19 policy measures by self and others in the UK, focusing on perceived reasons for non-adherence.
DESIGN Qualitative study comprising 12 online focus groups conducted between 25th September and 13th November 2020.
SETTING Online video-conferencing
PARTICIPANTS 51 UK residents aged 18 and above, reflecting a range of ages, genders and race/ethnicities.
RESULTS Participants reported seeing an increase in non-adherence in others and identified a number of challenges to their own adherence to measures. Thematic analysis identified six main themes related to participants’ reported reasons for non-adherence in self and others: (1) Alert fatigue (2) Inconsistent rules (3) Lack of trust in government (4) Helplessness (5) Resistance and rebelliousness (6) Reduced perception of risk and the prospect of a vaccine. Participants also raised concerns that adherence would be impacted by a desire to socialise over Christmas. Two forms of non-adherence were observed: overt rule- breaking and subjective rule interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS Adherence may be improved by: less frequent and clearer information on COVID-19 to reduce alert fatigue; implementing a more unified set of measures within and across countries in the UK; role modelling good adherence by authority figures; exploring ways to mitigate the impact that events like Christmas vaccine ‘breakthroughs’ may have on reducing adherence.
Competing Interest Statement
CJA is supported by NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre. TT is currently employed by the World Health Organization. The authors have no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by the Manchester Centre for Health Psychology based at the University of Manchester and Swansea University Greatest Need Fund
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was received by Swansea University School of Management Research Ethics Committee
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
s.n.williams{at}swansea.ac.uk
chris.armitage{at}manchester.ac.uk
tova.tampe{at}gmail.com
k.a.dienes{at}swansea.ac.uk
Data Availability
Ethical restrictions related to participant confidentiality prohibit the authors from making the data set publicly available. During the consent process, participants were explicitly guaranteed that the data would only be seen my members of the study team. For any discussions about the data set please contact the corresponding author, Simon Williams (s.n.williams@swansea.ac.uk).
