Table 1.

Studies examining the relationship between delay discounting and PHM compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

Study	PHM(s) studied	Measure of discounting	n	Countr(ies) of data collection	Time of data collection	Correlation of delay discounting with PHMs
Byrne et al., 2021	Physical distancing, mask-wearing	Area-under-the-curve	404	USA	July–December 2020	Greater delay discounting associated with less physical distancing and mask-wearing
Lloyd et al., 2021	Physical distancing	Delay discounting magnitude effect slope (m), and its intercept (c)	442	UK	April–May, 2020	Greater delay discounting predicted poorer adherence to physical distancing measures
DeAngelis et al., 2022	Physical distancing, stockpiling	Log-transformed k value	3,686	96 countries	March–May 2020	Discounting negatively correlated with physical distancing and positively correlated with stockpiling
Calluso et al., 2021	Going out, hand sanitation, use of protective equipment	Log-transformed k value	353	Italy	May 2020	Discounting rate was positively related to compliance physical distancing and mask- and glove-wearing
Wismans et al., 2021	Social distancing, hygiene	Log-transformed k value	6,759	Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden	June 2020	Discounting rate positively related to social distancing and hygiene compliance
Krawiec et al., 2022	Physical distancing, mask-wearing, disinfection	Log-transformed k value	338	Poland	December 2020–February 2021	No significant correlation between delay discounting and any of the PHMs studied
Agrawal et al., 2023	Social distancing, mask-wearing	Area-under-the-curve	12,906	USA	March 26, 2020; April 2020; June 30, 2020; November 2, 2020	Discounting rate negatively related to compliance with physical distancing, but not mask-wearing