Abstract
The Lancet COVID-19 Commission Task Force for Public Health Measures to Suppress the Pandemic was launched to identify critical points for consideration by governments on public health interventions to control coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Drawing on our review of published studies of data analytics and modelling, evidence synthesis and contextualisation, and behavioural science evidence and theory on public health interventions from a range of sources, we outline evidence for a range of institutional measures and behaviour-change measures. We cite examples of measures adopted by a range of countries, but especially jurisdictions that have, thus far, achieved low numbers of COVID-19 deaths and limited community transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Finally, we highlight gaps in knowledge where research should be undertaken. As countries consider long-term measures, there is an opportunity to learn, improve the response and prepare for future pandemics.
Keywords: behaviour change, COVID-19, pandemic, public health
Introduction
The Lancet COVID-19 Commission Task Force for Public Health Measures to Suppress the Pandemic1 was launched in September 2020 to identify critical points for consideration by governments on public health interventions to control coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As countries consider long-term measures, there is an opportunity to learn, improve the response and prepare for future pandemics. In this paper, we review the evidence for two broad groups of public health interventions: institutional measures and behaviour-change measures. We define institutional measures as those strategies for pandemic control operationalised through four policy instruments: legal (e.g. acts and regulations); economic (e.g. public investment and subsidies); voluntary standards and guidelines; and information and education.2 Behaviour-change measures are implemented and maintained by restriction and coercion; persuasion and incentivisation; education and training; modelling; enablement and environmental restructuring, and are influenced by factors operating at the individual, community and population level.3 We cite examples of institutional and behaviour-change measures adopted by a range of countries, but especially jurisdictions that have, thus far, achieved low numbers of COVID-19 deaths and limited community transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
Review criteria
To identify our main points, we drew on data analytics and modelling, evidence synthesis and contextualisation, and behavioural science evidence and theory on public health interventions. For the most current evidence syntheses of the effectiveness of institutional and behaviour-change measures, we searched the Cochrane Coronavirus Resources website (https://www.cochrane.org/our-evidence/coronavirus-covid-19-resources) and COVID-19 research published on health evidence (https://www.healthevidence.org/) then performed PubMed searches (without date specification) for evidence of measures drawn from studies of interventions used in other pandemics.
Institutional measures
In general, most countries with SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) experience were better prepared for using measures, such as isolation of people with infection or quarantine for interrupting disease transmission, than jurisdictions whose only recent experience was with pandemic influenza.4 This experience, together with advances in the knowledge of virus transmission modes, generated some or all of the following institutional responses: government measures to minimise interpersonal contact and reduce person-to-person transmission; early well-coordinated and widespread community testing, contact tracing, supported quarantine of contacts and isolation of cases and vaccination; strengthening health systems, including systems for testing and vaccination, as well as services addressing other health needs of populations; and clear and consistent public communications and trusted political leadership.5 Our points relate to these responses, in turn.
Government measures to minimise interpersonal contact and reduce person-to-person transmission
Until large-scale vaccination of populations and or herd immunity reduce virus transmission, governments must rely on the public health measures at their disposal to contain the spread within their populations. Early in the pandemic, virus transmission was known to be primarily via respiratory droplets spread during close physical contact. Airborne transmission of smaller droplets and particles suspended in the air and able to travel over longer distances and time than close-contact droplet transmission is another important but less common route.6 The contribution of fomites to SARS-COV-2 transmission remains unclear.7 Public health measures have, therefore, focused on minimising interpersonal contact to reduce the risks of person-to-person transmission. These include mobility restrictions, border restrictions, shutdowns of workplaces and all but essential facilities, limitations to the size of public gatherings, using barriers and visual prompts to facilitate physical distancing, screening for symptoms before entering indoor spaces, mandating mask-wearing8 and personal and environmental hygiene measures (disinfecting surfaces, making handwashing facilities and masks readily available).9 When combined, these measures appear to have been effective in reducing transmission in countries where they were implemented and adhered to by most people.9
A systematic review found that the introduction of cross-border travel restriction led to reductions in the number of imported/exported cases and in the number of new cases.10 Another systematic review that included 29 studies (10 modelling studies on COVID-19, 4 observational studies and 15 modelling studies on SARS and MERS) reported that, when combined, prevention and control measures (school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing and quarantine) demonstrated a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than individual measures alone.11
A cross-country analysis using documented cases from 20 countries found that venue closures were associated with a reduction by 36% in the number of new cases, closely followed by large gathering bans, work bans on non-essential business activities, then banning gatherings of more than 50 people.12 Limiting small and large gatherings, border restrictions, limiting individual movement, national lockdowns and school closures are all effective in significantly reducing transmission.13 Lockdowns in particular have a large effect on reducing transmission.12 These measures are more effective the more strictly they are adhered to. Most countries have employed most of these measures to some degree, with policy, regulatory and legislative tools used to increase adherence.14
Early well-coordinated and widespread community testing, contact tracing, supported quarantine of contacts and isolation of cases
Testing, contact tracing, quarantining contacts and isolating infected people are fundamental to the public health response and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, even as vaccines are being deployed. A systematic review concluded that quarantine measures could reduce the number of infected people and the number of deaths, the former by 44–81%, the latter by 31–63%.11
Population-wide antigen testing (testing an entire community or jurisdiction) has been adopted as an emergency response to newly detected clusters in some countries (e.g. China and Vietnam). The rationale has been to rapidly identify cases, link them to isolation and contact tracing and thus prevent widespread transmission. A Cochrane rapid review found a limited evidence base for the effectiveness of community-wide testing and only low-certainty evidence that testing people at travel hubs (such as airports and train stations) may slightly reduce the importation of infected cases.15 Furthermore, the usefulness of this approach diminishes if laboratory capacity is insufficient and overwhelmed, as in countries with widespread transmission. Where testing capacity is adequate, in addition to testing all suspected cases, countries may consider regular, community-based testing programmes of populations in high-risk settings (e.g. hospitals, long-term care facilities, school, prison, migrant detention and reception centres), at high occupational risk (e.g. healthcare and social workers, food packaging and processing plant workers) and in vulnerable communities, to identify and isolate any asymptomatic or early emerging cases of COVID-19. Testing should be carried out by trained, appropriately equipped staff, and adequately resourced to ensure convenient, free or low-cost access, minimal waiting, strong information infrastructure systems across the health systems and prompt communication of results to ensure rapid linkage of positive results to contact tracing and isolation.
Testing should be accompanied by rapid contact tracing (forward and retrospective), isolation and quarantine of close contacts, plus surveillance, outbreak investigation and healthcare and social-care system response, especially when testing capacity is limited. Contact tracing requires identifying persons who may have been exposed to COVID-19, assessing their exposure risk, arranging a test (routinely or symptom-based), and subsequent disposition to quarantine (if test-negative or asymptomatic) or isolation (if test-positive or symptomatic), within the evidence-based incubation period from the last point of exposure. When systematically applied, and in a context where there are high levels of public trust in the authorities leading the process, contact tracing has the potential to prevent up to 80% of all transmissions and break new transmission chains.16,17 Because SARS-CoV-2 may spread through ‘superspreading’ events, where one person infects multiple people (as is especially the case with the more infective variant strains of concern), retrospective contact tracing is vital, to find when and where a person was infected and thus help identify who else might have been infected at the time.
During surges, countries have trouble keeping up with contact tracing. It is critical to implement the system early when cases are manageable.17 In a setting of a young population, a large proportion of infections are asymptomatic with no identifiable positive contacts (who are likely also to be asymptomatic), making it more difficult to control infections without mass testing of asymptomatic cases. Countries should commit to supporting conventional contact tracing through training an additional skilled workforce able to be mobilised rapidly and flexibly to respond to surges and establishing a centrally coordinated contact tracing national database.18 The cost of contact tracing systems is small relative to the economic and social cost of repeated shutdowns.
Contact tracing efforts may be complemented using digital tools, such as the voluntary use of QR codes to log locations visited over the previous 14 d (e.g. New Zealand and the Republic of Korea), or mobile phone Bluetooth apps that automatically log proximate encounters with others using the app (e.g. Singapore, New Zealand, many European countries), linkage of global positioning systems, credit card transactions and closed-circuit television databases to identify contacts (e.g. the Republic of Korea).19,20 Uptake has been varied across countries because of accuracy and trust, influenced by privacy and data-safety concerns.20,21 Different societies have different levels of tolerance for such digital tracking and some countries have data-protection rules that would not allow their implementation; therefore, a strong recommendation for them cannot be made. Where measures might involve intrusion into an individual's personal life, it is important that they are both necessary to achieve public goals and time bound (i.e. to the duration of the pandemic) to respect the fundamental rights of people.21 However, there is currently only limited evidence for a reduction in secondary cases if digital contact tracing is used with other measures such as self-isolation, and weak evidence that digital contact tracing may produce more reliable counts of contacts and reduce time to complete contact tracing.22
The fact that COVID-19 patients can be infectious while asymptomatic or presymptomatic complicates efforts to reduce the virus's spread. Isolation of confirmed cases is a necessary step in the containment of the virus, but quarantine of close contacts of cases for an incubation period is also important. Elements of a quarantine and isolation policy include location, duration, support and protection. Either home (if single or if home configuration allows for physical distancing) or alternatives to home (e.g. hospitals, hotels, repurposed sport stadiums, convention centres or other venues) can be applied. To exit isolation, people should have had asymptomatic periods with consecutive negative test results. The individual being isolated should be provided with information about what worsening or urgent symptoms and signs to monitor. Whenever financially possible, the isolated individual should be provided with support: meals or food to prepare meals; personal care and homemaking supplies (e.g. soap, cleaning supplies); communication to be able to interact with family, friends, employer and banker, etc.); caregiving if not able to care for dependents (e.g. children or older parents) or pets; remote working support if able to work; paid leave if not able to work; job protection if not able to work; housing protection if not able to pay rent or mortgage and/or maintain property; exercise options; and healthcare (e.g. nursing care and physician visits) if their condition deteriorates or they have concurrent medical conditions. Because these support packages are expensive, it is critical to implement them early when the number of cases is low.
Strengthening health systems and services addressing other health needs of populations
The pandemic has highlighted weaknesses and strengths in health systems. Some countries responded rapidly and innovatively. For example, China built quasi-hospitals in a matter of days to care for mild to moderate patients who did not need oxygen therapy.23 Attention has focused on the availability of acute and intensive care beds, but effective primary, community and social care are also crucial to provide care for infected people not needing hospitalisation and to ensure continuity of care for people with other care needs.23,24 A WHO survey found that many countries have struggled to deliver essential health services, such as routine vaccinations and screening programmes, and the care of people with cancer, mental health issues and addictions, as well as surgical needs, particularly in low-income countries.25 Defining and protecting essential service delivery is critical to sustain good health outcomes and maintain the trust of communities in the health services and population health,26 especially vulnerable groups such as indigenous peoples who generally have a lower standard of living, limited access to healthcare, including public health services, and who experience poorer health outcomes than the population overall.27
It is vital that contact tracing and social isolation measures build on existing community-based programmes with a geographical and health system reach with well-rehearsed systems for reaching the most remote, most in need, most vulnerable and people with disabilities.28 Where they exist, such programmes (e.g. the neglected tropical disease programme in Africa) provide an excellent platform that other programmes can learn from and link to.29
Many countries have faced health professional shortages, with significant skill mismatches. The shortfall of health workers globally is estimated at 18 million, primarily in low- and middle-income countries, but many high-income countries also have shortages.30 Countries with decentralised health systems have been able to tailor care to local needs and involve communities. For example, Rwanda used its community health workers and Ethiopia its health extension workers31 to ensure communities had access to frontline healthcare services, laboratory and contact-tracing staff, as well as behavioural support. Unfortunately, coverage for high-quality services is limited in many low- and middle-income countries, as revealed by the reliance on community volunteers in the delivery of health interventions.32
Communication and leadership
Public communication allows those at risk to understand and adopt behaviours necessary to mitigate risks and harm and should be integrated as a critical element in pandemic preparedness and response activities. Communication must clearly establish the priorities and actions to be followed and facilitate appropriate actions and their consequences. Governments should establish strategies that control and coordinate the flow of information, linked to increasing people's motivation and confidence to act and promote actions that individuals can realistically take to protect their health and that of their families and communities. They should present the benefits of adhering to control measures at the individual, community and broader societal/national level.
Public communication should be tailored to target audiences by both message and medium; stakeholder engagement is important to identify the most appropriate message framing and medium of the message.33 Positively framed messages emphasising a collective vs individual approach may be most effective.33 Communication should be transparent, relying on the latest scientific evidence to counteract inaccurate and unverified information shared through social media or informal platforms such as word of mouth.34–36
Building trust with the public is vital to gain widespread cooperation and to avoid the need for coercion. New rules are more likely to be effective if communicated widely by trusted sources, enabled and enforced, and seen by the population as a valid need.37 Effective public communications from governments and their agencies build and convey trust by being clear, repeated, action-oriented and delivered by a trusted leader (e.g. community leader, trusted public health professional).33
However, trust in government and state institutions varies widely between and within countries and could explain in part observed differences in effectiveness and adherence by the public to actions recommended by governments.38 Trust in both the message and the person delivering the message can be enhanced by acknowledging uncertainty, changing recommendations and information or previous errors.33
Communication should also be pro-equity, prioritising the most vulnerable populations.39 It should engage with these populations and involve local stakeholders to aid in decision-making and tailor communication and interventions to their unique needs.39 It should protect groups that experience stigma and discrimination related to the pandemic.40 Pandemic communication must be sensitive to the diversity of populations, especially language and culture, adjusting communication strategies for indigenous and ethnic minorities and low socioeconomic groups, utilising multiple platforms and channels, especially those preferred by vulnerable populations, to design appropriate communication strategies.41
Effective political and community leadership has emerged as a related critical component to controlling the spread of the virus. It requires innovation, a focus on learning and experimentation,42 exploring alternative solutions grounded in solid evidence and timely data generation, and creative responses coupled with tried and tested measures to adequately manage risks.43 Leaders should evaluate the public's response to their pandemic control measures, and act according to the findings to build and maintain trust.43–46
Leaders should develop and communicate clear objectives underpinning a strategy for tackling the pandemic.47 Leaders of different countries have articulated different objectives: for example, while the UK has pursued the objective of ‘mitigation’ or ‘suppression’, the leaders of New Zealand, China, Taiwan and others have communicated the ambitious goal of eliminating community transmission to zero. They should model the behaviour that they want to see, because others will follow their lead.47
Even the strongest health measures are likely to be ineffective if the population does not embrace them. In the next section, therefore, we consider the role of behaviour change.
Enabling public behaviour change
We focus in this section on the behaviour of the public in communities. Until effective vaccines have been administered at a global scale, changes in public behaviours represent the primary defence mechanism against COVID-19.48 Even highly effective vaccines are ineffective at the population level unless very large numbers of people assent to be vaccinated. Protective behaviours will still be required, given the possibility of only partial protection afforded by vaccination and the emergence of variant strains of the virus.49 Thus, human behaviour is the key to managing the COVID-19 pandemic.50 To date, there has been limited research investment, and therefore few empirical studies, on the evidence of effectiveness of behavioural interventions on COVID-19 infection rates. Despite understanding behaviour being vital to managing COVID-19, national pandemic responses have included ineffective and even counterproductive measures. For example, a lack of adherence to government advice may be assumed to stem from low motivation, when the real issue is a lack of opportunity and/or knowledge (e.g. knowledge of rules). Understanding public behaviours, their influences, and evidence of the effectiveness of different types of intervention, will also prove invaluable for future pandemics, increasing understanding about how and why populations within and between countries have reacted differently and about the impacts of these different approaches.51
Behaviours that can reduce COVID-19 transmission
Key behaviours drawn from case studies around the world and the WHO51 can be grouped into five categories: protective behaviours; behaviours if symptomatic; safe participation in health, social and economic systems; vaccination uptake; and recovery behaviours. Table 1 shows these key behaviours grouped according to the phase of the pandemic (community transmission occurring, vaccine available and accessible, and the recovery phase).
Table 1.
Key behaviours according to different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic
Phase of pandemic | Key behaviours |
---|---|
Community transmission occurring | Protective behaviours Maintain safe physical and social distance, cover nose and mouth when coughing and sneezing, wear masks (especially indoors, on public transport or when in crowds), avoid touching eyes, nose and mouth, disinfect hands and surfaces, immediately isolate if a contact is symptomatic, ventilate indoor spaces, limit indoor gatherings, meet people out-doors, symptom checking.Behaviours if symptomaticIsolate immediately, get tested, isolate while awaiting the result, provide a list of close contacts.Safe participation in health, social and economic systemsWork from home if required and feasible, use telehealth services, limit distances travelled, limit the number of places visited, download and use a contact tracing app if available or keep a diary of all premises visited, exercise locally in families or small groups, buy online and locally. |
Vaccine available and accessible | Vaccination uptakeGet vaccinated (especially the most vulnerable), support dependents to get vaccinated, encourage others to vaccinate. |
Recovery | Recovery behavioursBuild protective behaviours into routines and social norms, avoid crowded indoor spaces, create enabling environments (e.g. ventilated indoor spaces) to ensure protective behaviours can be maintained sustainably at scale. |
Behaviour-change strategies to prevent viral transmission
Many types of intervention can be effective in changing behaviour, but the most effective strategies use several types of intervention simultaneously and maintain them over time. An integrative framework based on 19 frameworks identified in a literature review, the behaviour change wheel (BCW), identifies 9 broad intervention types (education, persuasion, incentivisation, coercion, training, restriction, environmental restructuring, modelling and enablement).3 For simplicity, we group these functions into five groups: restriction and coercion (making new rules and enforcing them); persuasion and incentivisation (convincing people that behaviour will result in good outcomes); education and training (on how to perform); modelling; and enablement and environmental restructuring (making the behaviour easy to do).52,53 In Table 2, we draw on several examples to illustrate interventions frequently used by governments according to these groups.54,55
Table 2.
Interventions identified from published evidence and country examples, according to behaviours for reducing community transmission
Behaviour | Intervention types | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
New rules and enforcement (restriction/coercion) | Convince people behaviours will lead to positive outcomes (persuasion/incentives) | Education and training on how to do behaviours (education/training) | Modelling behaviour (modelling) | Make the behaviour easy (enablement/environmental restructuring) | |
Personal protective behaviour (handwashing, not touching face, covering coughs and sneezes) | Public facing campaigns, community-driven campaigns | Guidelines for correct handwashing, lists of recommended behaviours | Leaders/peers demonstrating and used in communication | Hand sanitiser is readily available | |
Mask-wearing | Mandating mask-wearing (in general or particular places), fines for not wearing masks, no entry to premises without mask | Public facing campaigns, bespoke audience-focused messaging, greater freedoms with masks | Make your own mask videos, information on how to wear, clean and dispose of masks | Leaders wearing masks, used in communication | Free mask availability |
Limiting interactions (social distancing/physical distancing/stay at home when required/isolating when required) | Number limits at indoor and outdoor gatherings, limiting movement (e.g. 5 km or exclusion zones with checkpoints and fines for being out of zone), isolating when required (e.g. travelling or in hotspot) and fines for non-compliance, curfews and fines for breaches, closing/limiting businesses, requirements for COVID-19 plans, closing/limiting schools and public transport, greater policing | Public facing campaigns reinforcing collective efficacy, bespoke audience-focused messaging, payments to cover lost work opportunities and income, early access to retirement funds | Public/political announcements (about restrictions), guidelines, information for education | Leaders/peers staying at home and used in communication | Tables/chairs spaced in venues, limited numbers in venues, isolation facilities available, designation of responsible person in facility, markers on the ground to show distance, barriers between service employees and customers, purchase collection points near the front |
Getting tested | Limiting movement/ability to work without test results | Public facing campaigns, bespoke audience-focused messaging, community-driven communication, free testing, increased local services in response to cases | Leaders/peers getting tested, used in communication | Multiple test sites, free testing, readily accessible information on test site locations, speedy SMS notification of test results | |
Getting vaccinated | Limit movement/ability to work/access to venues without vaccination | Public facing campaigns, bespoke audience-focused messaging | Leaders/peers getting vaccinated, used in communication | Free vaccination, multiple vaccination sites (or mobile vaccination), reminders for boosters |
According to the BCW approach, behavioural interventions likely to be effective should be selected based on understanding the nature of the target behaviour and its context. Depending on what needs to change—motivation and/or capability (e.g. knowledge and skills) and/or opportunity (physical and social)—different interventions should be selected. These interventions can be supported, implemented and maintained by one or more policy options: fiscal policy, legislation, regulation, environmental planning, communications, service provision and guidelines.3,56
Explanations for variation in behaviour within and between countries
Behaviour is influenced by factors operating at individual, community and population levels,57 such as trust in government,58–61 the degree of inequality in a society,62–66 culture and national history (including experience of pandemics),67 health literacy,68 values and personality traits,69,70 opportunities to break rules,70 population density and housing conditions,71 as well as the quality and frequency of communication.72 Because populations differ widely in the degree to which such factors are at play, modelling behavioural adherence by using other countries’ experiences and data should be carried out with caution: there is no one-size-fits-all in government interventions to change COVID-19 behaviour.54,73
Driving behaviour change: the role of national governments
To deliver on the potential of behavioural science,74 governments should identify key behaviours (depending on the stage of the pandemic); measure and monitor the behaviour of populations; co-create and evaluate interventions based on understanding drivers and barriers of key behaviours; and communicate effectively (highlighted here because of its widespread use and misuse). We consider each of these in turn.
Identifying key behaviours
Behaviours with high population impact (i.e. their collective performance will decrease community COVID-19 transmission) and high likelihood of being adopted (perceived as easy to do and effective by the target population) and adhered to are vital to focus on.75 All too often adoption and adherence are addressed through rules, instead of enabling social norms and environmental support, which may have the added benefit of positive spillover effects on other behaviours.76
Measuring and monitoring behaviours
Once identified, governments should monitor behaviours for efficacy and reach, using objective measures rather than self-report, and in real time and everyday contexts. Data are needed on influences on behaviour, such as trust in government, knowledge, motivation (including risk perceptions), acceptance of recommended behaviours, misperceptions and stigma. These may serve as barriers or drivers to recommended behaviours. This information can assist in identifying resistance to change,77 risk compensation (people may compensate for changes perceived as improving safety by adapting their behaviour78), such as could occur with wide vaccination coverage, and new ways to change behaviour. Monitoring behaviour may help identify groups where rule adherence and proactive behaviour change is lower than desired, to inform targeted interventions for additional support.
Co-creating and evaluating interventions based on understanding drivers and barriers of key behaviours
Governments should draw on insights from behavioural science into why people perform desirable and undesirable behaviours and co-create interventions with people from the target population who have relevant lived experience and can provide information about context. Models and theories of behaviour that summarise what is known about behaviour and how to change it can be useful for understanding what is likely to be effective for different behaviours and contexts.3,79 Evaluations should be of both outcome (intervention effectiveness) and of process (how the intervention achieved its effects), to inform the design of better interventions in the future.
Effective communication
In Box 1, we propose a set of principles of effective communication for use by governments according to objective and context.80–82
Box 1. Principles of effective communication
Communicate broadly and early to shaping public opinion
Use trusted sources and networks to deliver localised messages, in addition to mass media
Engage end-users in message design
Emphasise positive descriptive norms
Emphasise collective efficacy
Highlight alternative behaviours (e.g. food delivery services)
Use clear, concise, consistent and frequently repeated messages
In multiethnic and multilingual countries, ensure that all population groups are reached through customised messages
Be honest about uncertainty and failure
Emphasise benefits to the recipient and others
Align with the recipient's moral values
Highlight the prospect of social group approval
Avoid stigmatising groups for not adhering to recommendations.
Conclusions
An effective and equitable public health response should be grounded in iteratively revised institutional responses that draw on robust data analytics and modelling, strong evidence synthesis and contextualisation, in tandem with the thoughtful application of behavioural science evidence and theory.
However, there are many challenges and questions still to be answered about the effectiveness and equity of the public health measures, especially in the light of the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.83 Even as vaccinations are being given to millions of people in many countries, research is urgently needed to answer questions on the current approach to vaccination (e.g. using vaccines that offer greater protection against variants, using different vaccines for first and second doses and/or re-vaccinating those initially vaccinated with vaccines with limited efficacy for new variants). There are gaps in knowledge to inform changes in policies on infection-prevention measures in the community (e.g. duration of handwashing, mask-wearing, as well as physical and temporal distancing); community infection-control procedures (the duration of quarantine of exposed or potentially exposed individuals, the duration for isolating suspected cases); the frequency of testing; and the approach to contact tracing and outbreak management. For health systems, there are many questions about the implications of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern on capacity planning if re-infection and severe disease emerge as additional challenges, frequency of screening, personal protective equipment, cohorting patients based on variants, adjusting patient spaces and so on. From the perspective of behaviour change, it is crucial to understand if people are adequately prepared to cope long-term with both the demands and the consequences of living with essential public health measures.
To mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19 restrictions and build preparedness for future pandemics, political leaders at local, regional and global levels must weigh up the benefits and harms of restrictions on individual freedoms, tackle existing and emerging inequities, provide clear, consistent guidance to the public and strengthen capacity in research and the application of the analytical and behavioural sciences.84 Despite the many challenges, there is an unprecedented window of opportunity for countries to work collectively to ‘build back better’, with more robust and equitable processes, policies, public health infrastructure and health systems.
Acknowledgements
We thank Jeffrey Sachs (Chair of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission) and the Commission secretariat for reviewing the manuscript.
Contributor Information
Jong-Koo Lee, Seoul National University, College of Medicine, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea; Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.
Chris Bullen, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Yanis Ben Amor, Center for Sustainable Development, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, 10115, USA.
Simon R Bush, Sightsavers, P.O. Box KIA 18190 Accra, Ghana.
Francesca Colombo, OECD Health Division, Paris, 75016, France.
Alejandro Gaviria, School of Economics, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, 111711, Colombia.
Salim S Abdool Karim, Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA), Private Bag X7, Congella, 4013, Durban, South Africa; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, New York, 10032, USA.
Booyuel Kim, Department of Environmental Planning, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea; Environmental Planning Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea.
John N Lavis, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Jeffrey V Lazarus, Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, 08036, Spain.
Yi-Chun Lo, Taiwan Centers for Disease Control, Taipei, 100, Taiwan.
Susan F Michie, UCL Centre for Behaviour Change, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Ole F Norheim, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Postboks 7804 NO-5020, Bergen, Norway.
Juhwan Oh, Seoul National University, College of Medicine, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.
Kolli Srinath Reddy, Public Health Foundation of India, Delhi, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002, India.
Mikael Rostila, Department of Public Health Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 10691, Sweden.
Rocío Sáenz, School of Public Health, Universidad de Costa Rica, San Pedro Montes de Oca, San José, 11501, Costa Rica.
Liam D G Smith, BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash University, Melbourne, 3800, Australia.
John W Thwaites, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, 3800, Australia.
Miriam K Were, Champions of an AIDS-Free Generation in Africa, P.O. Box 63056 - 00200 Nairobi.
Lan Xue, School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China.
Authors’ contributions
JKL and CB are the co-chairs of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission Task Force for Public Health Measures to Suppress the Pandemic. The task force (TF) members are listed alphabetically. All the TF members contributed to study design, study implementation, analysis and interpretation of data, writing and approval of the final version.
Funding
CB reports research grants from the Health Research Council of New Zealand (NZ), the Heart Foundation of NZ and the NZ Ministry of Health. BK reports research grants from the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2018S1A3A2075117]. J Lazarus reports research funding from the European Commission and Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. SM reports a research grant from NIHR (UK) NETSCC, and grants from MRC (UK). J Lavis reports grants from NIHR, CIHR (Canada), PHA of Canada, Fidelity Charitable and Centre for Effective Altruism, US.
Competing interests
CB has recently led an international project on disease management and COVID-19 funded by Pfizer and provided consultancy for J&J KK (Japan).
Ethical approval
Not required.
Data availability
Data sharing does not apply to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
- 1.Lancet COVID-19 Commission . Task Force on Public Health Measures to Suppress the Pandemic. Available at https://covid19commission.org/task-forces [accessed March 7, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Howlett M.What is a policy instrument? Tools, mixes, and implementation styles. In Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance 2005:31–50. McGill-Queen's University Press, Canada. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Michie S, van Stralen M, West R.. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Sci. 2011;6:42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wang CJ, Ng CY, Brook RH.. Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: big data analytics, new technology, and proactive testing. JAMA. 2020;323:1341–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.An B, Tang S-Y.. Lessons from COVID-19 responses in East Asia: institutional infrastructure and enduring policy instruments. Am Rev Adm. 2020;50:6–7. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Galbadage T, Peterson BM, Gunasekera RS.. Does COVID-19 spread through droplets alone? Front Public Health. 2020;8:163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bedrosian N, Mitchell E, Rohm Eet al. A systematic review of surface contamination, stability, and disinfection data on SARS-CoV-2. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55(7):4162–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chou R, Dana T, Jungbauer Ret al. Update alert 4: masks for prevention of respiratory virus infections, including SARS-CoV-2, in health care and community settings. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:W24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda Set al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020;395:1973–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Burns J, Movsisyan A, Stratil JMet al. International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;3:CD013717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Nussbaumer-Streit B, Mayr V, AI Dobrescuet al. Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;4(4):CD013574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Burns J, Movsisyan A, Stratil JMet al. Travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;9:CD013717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Haug N, Geyrhofer L, Londei Aet al. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nature Human Behaviour. 2020;4:1303–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hale T, Webster S, Petherick Aet al. Relationship between number of COVID-19 cases and government response. Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Viswanathan M, Kahwati L, Jahn Bet al. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;9:CD013718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. OECD. Testing for COVID-19: How to best use the various tests? OECD Coronavirus Policy Brief 2020. Deutche Welle (DW) News. Available at https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/testing-for-covid-19-how-to-best-use-the-various-tests-c76df201/ [accessed April 28, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kretzschmar ME, Rozhnova G, Bootsma MCJet al. Impact of delays on effectiveness of contact tracing strategies for COVID-19: a modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e452–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hellewell J, Abbott S, Gimma Aet al. Feasibility of controlling COVID-19 outbreaks by isolation of cases and contacts. Lancet Global Health. 2020;8:e488–96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Yang F, Heemsbergen L, Fordyce R.. Comparative analysis of China's Health Code, Australia's COVIDSafe and New Zealand's COVID Tracer Surveillance Apps: a new corona of public health governmentality? Media International Australia. 2020:1329878×20968277. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Park YJ, Choe YJ, Park Oet al. Contact tracing during coronavirus disease outbreak, South Korea, 2020. Emerging Infect Dis. 2020;26:2465–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Nature . Show evidence that apps for COVID-19 contact-tracing are secure and effective. Nature. 2020;580(7805):563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Anglemyer A, Moore THM, Parker Let al. Digital contact tracing technologies in epidemics: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;8:CD013699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Deutche Welle (DW) News. Coronavirus: China builds hospital in 5 days after virus surge. Available at https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-china-builds-hospital-in-5-days-after-virus-surge/a-56247241 [accessed March 7, 2021].
- 24.OECD. Realising the Potential of Primary Health Care, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 25.WHO Pulse Survey on Continuity of Essential Health Service during COVID-19 Pandemic. Interim report, World Health Organization,2020. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Blanchet K, Alwan A, Antoine Cet al. Protecting essential health services in low-income and middle-income countries and humanitarian settings while responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5:10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools . Rapid Review: What is known about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Indigenous communities in Canada? 2020. Available at https://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/covid-19-rapid-evidence-service [accessed April 28, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Molyneux D, Aboe A, Isiyaku Set al. COVID-19 and neglected tropical diseases in Africa: impacts, interactions, consequences, Int Health. 2020;12(5):367–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Molyneux D, Bush S, Bannerman Ret al. Neglected tropical diseases activities in Africa in the COVID-19 era: the need for a “hybrid” approach in COVID-endemic times. Infect Dis Poverty. 2021;10(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.WHO, OECD, ILO. Working for Health and Growth : Investing in the Health Workforce. Report of the High Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth. WHO publishing, 2016.Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/250047/9789241511308-eng.pdf;jsessionid=F5272667B54C3AAED4185D95A23C4BDE?sequence=1 [accessed April 28, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Assefa Y, YA Gelaw, PS Hillet al. Community health extension program of Ethiopia, 2003–2018: successes and challenges toward universal coverage for primary healthcare services. Globalisation Health. 2019;15(1):24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Homeida M, Braide E, Elhassan Eet al. APOC's strategy of community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) and its potential for providing additional health services to the poorest populations. African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2002;96(Suppl 1):S93–104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools . What are best practices for risk communication and strategies to mitigate risk behaviours? 2020. Available at https://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/covid-19-rapid-evidence-service [accessed April 28, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
- 34.OECD . Transparency, communication and trust: the role of public communication in responding to the wave of disinformation about the new Coronavirus. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus, Paris, 2020.Available at https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/transparency-communication-and-trust-bef7ad6e/ [accessed April 28, 2020]. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Thomas A.Lessons from the pandemic: the need for new tools for risk and outbreak communication. Emerg Health Threats. 2011;4:1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Barrelet C, Bourrier M, Burton-Jeangros Cet al. Unresolved issues in risk communication research: the case of the H1N1 pandemic (2009–2011). Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2013;7(Suppl. 2):114–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Parker C, Nielsen VL.. Compliance: 14 questions. In: Drahos P, ed. Regulatory Theory. ANU Press; 2017:217–32. [Google Scholar]
- 38.OECD . The Territorial Impact of Covid-19: Managing The Crisis Across Levels Of Government. Available at http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/the-territorial-impact-of-covid-19-managing-the-crisis-across-levels-of-government-d3e314e1/ [accessed April 28, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Ataguba OA, Ataguba JE.. Social determinants of health: the role of effective communication in the COVID-19 pandemic in developing countries. Global Health Action. 2020;13(1):1788263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Gesser-Edelsburg A, Mordini E, James JJet al. Risk Communication Recommendations and Implementation During Emerging Infectious Diseases: A case study of the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2014;8:158–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Kim DKD, Kreps GL.. An analysis of government communication in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations for effective government health risk communication. World Med Health Policy. 2020;12:398–412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Ansell C, Sørensen E, Torfing J.. The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems, Public Manag Rev. 2020: P1–12. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272. [Google Scholar]
- 43.Koehn N.Real Leaders are Forged in Crisis. Harvard Business Review, April 3, 2020. Available at https://hbr.org/2020/04/real-leaders-are-forged-in-crisis [accessed April 28, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Siegrist M, Zing A.. The role of public trust during pandemics implications for crisis communication. Euro Psych. 2014;19:23–32. [Google Scholar]
- 45.Giustiniano L, Cunha M, Simpson Aet al. Resilient leadership as paradox work: notes from COVID-19. Manag Organ Rev. 2020;16(5):971–5. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Lazarus JV, Ratzan S, Palayew Aet al. COVID-SCORE: a global survey to assess public perceptions of government responses to COVID-19 (COVID-SCORE-10). PLoS One. 2020;15:e0240011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Ahern S, Loh E.. Leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic: building and sustaining trust in times of uncertainty. BMJ Leader. 2020;0:1–4. doi:10.1136/leader-2020-000271. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Shingler-Nace A.COVID-19: When leadership calls. Nurse Lead. 2020;18:202–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.WHO . Statement – Behavioural insights are valuable to inform the planning of appropriate pandemic response measures. May 14, 2020. Available at https://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/statements/2020/statement-behavioural-insights-are-valuable-to-inform-the-planning-of-appropriate-pandemic-response-measures [accessed November 24, 2020]. [Google Scholar]
- 50.WHO . Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public. December 29, 2020. Available at https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public [accessed November 24, 2020]. [Google Scholar]
- 51.Haug N, Geyrhofer L, Londei Aet al. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nature Human Behaviour. 2020;4:1303–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Michie S, West R.. Behavioural, environmental, social, and systems interventions against covid-19. BMJ. 2020;370:m2982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Michie S, Wood CE, Johnston Met al. Behaviour change techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative data). Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:1–188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Becher M, Stegmueller D, Brouard Set al. Comparative experimental evidence on compliance with social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2020. Available at 10.1101/2020.07.29.20164806. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Sadjadi M, Mörschel KS, Petticrew M.. Social distancing: barriers to its implementation and how they can be overcome – a rapid systematic review, 2020. Available at 10.1101/2020.09.16.20195966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.West R, Michie S, Rubin GJet al. Applying principles of behaviour change to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Nature Human Behaviour. 2020;4:451–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler Aet al. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15:351–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Han Q, Zheng B, Cristea Met al. Trust in government and its associations with health behaviour and prosocial behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2020. doi:10.31234/osf.io/p5gns. [Google Scholar]
- 59.Elgar FJ, Stefaniak A, Wohl MJA.. The trouble with trust: Time-series analysis of social capital, income inequality, and COVID-19 deaths in 84 countries. Social Sci Med. 2020;263:113365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Lalot F, Heering MS, Rullo M, Travaglino GA, Abrams D.. The dangers of distrustful complacency: Low concern and low political trust combine to undermine compliance with governmental restrictions in the emerging Covid-19 pandemic. Group Process Intergroup Relations. 2020:1368430220967986. [Google Scholar]
- 61.Devine D, Gaskell J, Jennings W, Stoker G.. Trust and the coronavirus pandemic: What are the consequences of and for trust? An early review of the literature. Political Stud Rev. 2020:1478929920948684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Bambra C, Riordan R, Ford J, Matthews F.. The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities. J Epidemiol Comm Health. 2020;74:964–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Link BG, Phelan J.. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. J Health Social Behav. 1995:80–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Pampel FC, Krueger PM, Denney JT.. Socioeconomic disparities in health behaviors. Ann Rev Sociology. 2010;36:349–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Papageorge NW, Zahn MV, Belot Met al. Socio-Demographic Factors Associated with Self-Protecting Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2020. IZA (Institute of Labor Economics) Discussion Paper. Available at https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13333/socio-demographic-factors-associated-with-self-protecting-behavior-during-the-covid-19-pandemic [accessed April 28, 2021]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Bavel JJV, Baicker K, Boggio PSet al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav. 2020; 4:460–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Reicher S, Stott C.. On order and disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. Brit J Soc Psychol. 2020;59:694–702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Paakkari L, Okan O.. COVID-19: health literacy is an underestimated problem. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(5):e249–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Wolf LJ, Haddock G, Manstead ASRet al. The importance of (shared) human values for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. Brit J Social Psychol. 2020;59:618–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Van Rooij B, de Bruijn A, Reinders Folmer Cet al. Compliance with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures in the United States, 2020. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3582626 [accessed March 7, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
- 71.Brandén M, Aradhya S, Kolk Met al. Residential context and COVID-19 mortality among adults aged 70 years and older in Stockholm: a population-based, observational study using individual-level data. Lancet Healthy Longevity. 2020;1(2):e80–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Anoko JN, Barry BR, Boiro Het al. Community engagement for successful COVID-19 pandemic response: 10 lessons from Ebola outbreak responses in Africa. BMJ Global Health. 2020;4(Suppl 7):e003121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Pawson R.The coronavirus response: boxed in by models: Evaluation; 2020;27(2):149–67. [Google Scholar]
- 74.Presseau J, McCleary N, Lorencatto Fet al. Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): a framework for specifying behaviour. Implement Sci. 2019;14:102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Kneebone S, Smith L, Fielding K.. The Impact-Likelihood Matrix: A policy tool for behaviour prioritisation. Environ Sci Policy. 2017;70:9–20. [Google Scholar]
- 76.Truelove HB, Carrico AR, Weber EUet al. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob Environ Change. 2014;29:127–38. [Google Scholar]
- 77.Betsch C, Wieler LH, Habersaat K.. Monitoring behavioural insights related to COVID-19. Lancet. 2020;395:1255–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Vrolix K.Behavioural Adaptation, Risk Compensation, Risk Homeostasis and Moral Hazard in Traffic Safety. Universiteit Hasselt, 2006. pp. 1–59. [Google Scholar]
- 79.OECD. Tools and Ethics for Applied Behavioural Insights: The BASIC Toolkit. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2019. Available at 10.1787/9ea76a8f-en [accessed March 7, 2021]. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Bavel JJV, Baicker K, Boggio PSet al. Using social and behavioral science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4:460–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.UK Government . SPI-B: Positive strategies for sustaining adherence to infection control behaviours, 22 October2020. Available athttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spi-b-positive-strategies-for-sustaining-adherence-to-infection-control-behaviors-22-october-2020 [accessed November 24, 2020]. [Google Scholar]
- 82.Cialdini RB, Demaine LJ, Sagarin BJet al. Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence. 2006;1:3–15. [Google Scholar]
- 83.Skegg D, Gluckman P, Boulton Get al. Future scenarios for the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet. 2021;397(10276):777–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Chu IY, Alam P, Larson HJet al. Social consequences of mass quarantine during epidemics: a systematic review with implications for the COVID-19 response. J Travel Med. 2020;27:taaa192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing does not apply to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.