RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The impact of believing you have had COVID-19 on behaviour: Cross-sectional survey
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.04.30.20086223
DO 10.1101/2020.04.30.20086223
A1 Louise E. Smith
A1 Abigail L. Mottershaw
A1 Mark Egan
A1 Jo Waller
A1 Theresa M. Marteau
A1 G James Rubin
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/05/2020.04.30.20086223.abstract
AB Objectives To investigate whether people who think they have had COVID-19 are less likely to engage in social distancing measures compared with those who think they have not had COVID-19.Design On-line cross-sectional survey.Setting Data were collected between 20th and 22nd April.Participants 6149 participants living in the UK aged 18 years or over.Main outcome measures Perceived immunity to COVID-19, self-reported adherence to social distancing measures (going out for essential shopping, nonessential shopping, and meeting up with friends/family; total out-of-home activity), worry about COVID-19 and perceived risk of COVID-19 to oneself and people in the UK. Knowledge that cough and high temperature / fever are the main symptoms of COVID-19.Results In this sample, 1493 people (24.3%) thought they had had COVID-19. Only 245 (4.0%) reported receiving a test result saying they had COVID-19. Reported test results were often incongruent with participants’ belief that they had had COVID-19. People who believed that they had had COVID-19 were: more likely to agree that they had some immunity to COVID-19; less likely to report adhering to social distancing measures; less worried about COVID-19; and less likely to know that cough and high temperature / fever are two of the most common symptoms of COVID-19.Conclusions The number of people in the UK who think they have already had COVID-19 is about twice the rate of current prevalence estimates. People who think that they have had COVID-19 may contribute to transmission of the virus through non-adherence to social distancing measures. Clear communications to this growing group are needed to explain why protective measures continue to be important and to encourage sustained adherence.COPYRIGHT The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence (or non exclusive for government employees) on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in BMJ editions and any other BMJPGL products and sublicences such use and exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence.FUNDING SOURCES JW is funded by a career development fellowship from Cancer Research UK (ref C7492/A17219). LS and GJR are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King’s College London in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with the University of East Anglia and Newcastle University. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health England. Data collection was funded via a block Government grant to the Behavioural Insights Team.COMPETING INTEREST STATEMENT All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: ALM and ME report grants from government partners to the Behavioural Insights Team, during the conduct of the study, JW reports grants from Cancer Research UK, during the conduct of the study; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.TRANSPARENCY DECLARATION The authors affirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as originally planned have been explained.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT The study was conceptualised by LS, GJR, JW and TMM. AM and ME completed data collection. LS analysed the data. All authors contributed to, and approved, the final manuscript.WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPICDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple countries, including the UK, have introduced “lockdown” measures.The World Health Organization has warned against using the results of antibody tests to issue “immunity passports” due to fears that those who test positive for antibodies may stop adhering to protective measures.There is no research investigating adherence to protective measures among those who think they have had COVID-19.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDSThis is the first study investigating behavioural differences between those who think they have had COVID-19 and those who do not.About twice as many people think they have had COVID-19 than prevalence estimates suggest.Results suggest that there may be a high degree of self-misdiagnosis within those who think they have had COVID-19.Those who think they have had COVID-19 were more likely to think they were immune to COVID-19, and less likely to adhere to social distancing measures.Competing Interest StatementThe authors declare: ALM and ME report grants from government partners to the Behavioural Insights Team, during the conduct of the study, JW reports grants from Cancer Research UK, during the conduct of the study; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Funding StatementJW is funded by a career development fellowship from Cancer Research UK (ref C7492/A17219). LS and GJR are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King’s College London in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with the University of East Anglia and Newcastle University. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health England. Data collection was funded via a block Government grant to the Behavioural Insights Team.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAnonymised data will be made available upon reasonable request.