Analyzing situational awareness through public opinion to predict adoption of social distancing amid pandemic COVID-19

Atika Qazi, Javaria Qazi, Khulla Naseer, Muhammad Zeeshan, Glenn Hardaker, Jaafar Zubairu Maitama, Khalid Haruna, Atika Qazi, Javaria Qazi, Khulla Naseer, Muhammad Zeeshan, Glenn Hardaker, Jaafar Zubairu Maitama, Khalid Haruna

Abstract

COVID-19 pandemic has affected over 100 countries in a matter of weeks. People's response toward social distancing in the emerging pandemic is uncertain. In this study, we evaluated the influence of information (formal and informal) sources on situational awareness of the public for adopting health-protective behaviors such as social distancing. For this purpose, a questionnaire-based survey was conducted. The hypothesis proposed suggests that adoption of social distancing practices is an outcome of situational awareness which is achieved by the information sources. Results suggest that information sources, formal (P = .001) and informal (P = 0.007) were found to be significantly related to perceived understanding. Findings also indicate that social distancing is significantly influenced by situational awareness, P = .000. It can, therefore, be concluded that an increase in situational awareness in times of public health crisis using formal information sources can significantly increase the adoption of protective health behavior and in turn contain the spread of infectious diseases.

Keywords: COVID-19; information sources; situational awareness; social distancing.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The proposed health care protective model. This figure represents the hypothesis on which the survey was conducted. It shows that formal and informal sources of information play a significant role in developing awareness which, in turn, impacts the adoption of social distancing behavior
Figure 2
Figure 2
Demographics of respondents. The pie charts show the demographics of the respondents in terms of sex, age, and education. A, Age; 39% participants belonged to 18 to 24 (blue) years of age, followed by 25 to 34 years (red). Other age groups were 35 to 44 years, 45 to 54 years, 55 to 64 years, and above 65. B, Sex; 59% females (red) and 41% males (blue) participated in the study. C, Education; majority of the participants, that is, 60% were diploma or masters holders (red)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Structural model. The figure is a visual representation of the structural model developed using the responses collected by gathering public opinion on situational awareness of COVID‐19 to adopt social distancing behavior

References

    1. Chen H, Guo J, Wang C, et al. Clinical characteristics and intrauterine vertical transmission potential of COVID‐19 infection in nine pregnant women: a retrospective review of medical records. Lancet. 2020;395(10226):809‐815.
    1. Zu ZY, Jiang MD, Xu PP, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19): a perspective from China. Radiology. 2020:200490.
    1. WHO . WHO announces COVID‐19 outbreak a pandemic.
    1. Meters WI. COVID‐19 coronavirus pandemic; 2020.
    1. WHO . WHO extends support to Pakistan as it confirms its first two cases of COVID‐19; 2020.
    1. Mukhtar F, Mukhtar N. Coronavirus (COVID‐19): let's prevent not panic. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2020;32:1.
    1. Jamal S. 10 steps Pakistan is taking to contain coronavirus; 2020.
    1. Liao Q, Cowling B, Lam WT, Ng MW, Fielding R. Situational awareness and health protective responses to pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in Hong Kong: a cross‐sectional study. PLOS One. 2010;5:e13350.
    1. Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health. 1998;13(4):623‐649.
    1. Qazi A, Tamjidyamcholo A, Raj RG, Hardaker G, Standing C. Assessing consumers' satisfaction and expectations through online opinions: expectation and disconfirmation approach. Comput Human Behav. 2017;75:450‐460.
    1. Qazi A, Syed KBS, Raj RG, Cambria E, Tahir M, Alghazzawi D. A concept‐level approach to the analysis of online review helpfulness. Comput Human Behav. 2016;58:75‐81.
    1. Qazi A, Hussain F, Rahim NA, et al. Towards sustainable energy: a systematic review of renewable energy sources, technologies, and public opinions. IEEE Access. 2019;7:63837‐63851.
    1. Rubin GJ, Amlôt R, Page L, Wessely S. Public perceptions, anxiety, and behaviour change in relation to the swine flu outbreak: cross sectional telephone survey. BMJ. 2009;339:b2651.
    1. Setbon M, Raude J. Factors in vaccination intention against the pandemic influenza A/H1N1. Eur J Pub Health. 2010;20(5):490‐494.
    1. Liao Q, Lam WWT, Jiang CQ, et al. Avian influenza risk perception and live poultry purchase in Guangzhou, China, 2006. Risk Anal. 2009;29(3):416‐424.
    1. Oliveira AC, Botega LC, Saran JF, et al. Crowdsourcing, data and information fusion and situation awareness for emergency management of forest fires: the project DF100Fogo (FDWithoutFire). Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2019;77:101172.
    1. Seppänen H, Mäkelä J, Luokkala P, Virrantaus K. Developing shared situational awareness for emergency management. Saf Sci. 2013;55:1‐9.
    1. Stubbings L, Chaboyer W, McMurray A. Nurses’ use of situation awareness in decision‐making: an integrative review. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(7):1443‐1453.
    1. Cooper S, Kinsman L, Buykx P, McConnell‐Henry T, Endacott R, Scholes J. Managing the deteriorating patient in a simulated environment: nursing students’ knowledge, skill and situation awareness. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(15‐16):2309‐2318.
    1. Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health‐related behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11(2):87‐98.
    1. Voeten HA, de Zwart O, Veldhuijzen IK, et al. Sources of information and health beliefs related to SARS and avian influenza among Chinese communities in the United Kingdom and The Netherlands, compared to the general population in these countries. Int J Behav Med. 2009;16(1):49‐57.
    1. Brug J, Aro AR, Oenema A, De Zwart O, Richardus JH, Bishop GD. SARS risk perception, knowledge, precautions, and information sources, the Netherlands. Emerging Infect Dis. 2004;10(8):1486.
    1. Leung G, Lam T, Ho L, et al. The impact of community psychological responses on outbreak control for severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(11):857‐863.
    1. Lau JT, Yang X, Tsui H, Kim JH. Monitoring community responses to the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong: from day 10 to day 62. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(11):864‐870.
    1. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using Multivariate Statistics. Vol 5. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2007.
    1. Roldán JL, Sánchez‐Franco MJ. Variance‐based structural equation modeling: guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2012:193‐221.
    1. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39‐50.
    1. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance‐based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43(1):115‐135.
    1. Hair JF Jr., Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS‐SEM). Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2016.
    1. Rasoolimanesh SM, Jaafar M, Badarulzaman N, Ramayah T. Investigating a framework to facilitate the implementation of city development strategy using balanced scorecard. Habitat Int. 2015;46:156‐165.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1992;1(3):98‐101.
    1. Fornell C, Cha J. Stone‐Geisser Criterion. Advanced Methods of Marketing Research. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
    1. Chin W. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 1998;22(1):vii–xvi.
    1. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173.
    1. Tenenhaus M, Vinzi VE, Chatelin Y‐M, Lauro C. PLS path modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2005;48 (1):159–205. 10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005
    1. Davenport TH, Prusak L. Working knowledge. Ubiquity. 2000;2000 (August):2–7. 10.1145/347634.348775
    1. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci. 1989;35(8):982‐1003.
    1. Rubin GJ, Potts H, Michie S. The impact of communications about swine flu (influenza A H1N1v) on public responses to the outbreak: results from 36 national telephone surveys in the UK. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(34):183‐266.
    1. Qazi A, Raj RG, Tahir M, Cambria E, Syed KBS. Enhancing business intelligence by means of suggestive reviews. Sci World J. 2014;2014:1–11. 10.1155/2014/879323
    1. Qazi A, Raj RG, Hardaker G, Standing C. A systematic literature review on opinion types and sentiment analysis techniques: tasks and challenges. Internet Res. 2017;7(3):608–630. 10.1108/intr-04-2016-0086
    1. Hudson W. Playing your cards right. Interactions. 2005;12(5):56. 10.1145/1082369.1082410
    1. Gattuso SM, Litt MD, Fitzgerald TE. Coping with gastrointestinal endoscopy: self‐efficacy enhancement and coping style. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992;60(1):133‐139.
    1. Slaughter L, Keselman A, Kushniruk A, Patel VL. A framework for capturing the interactions between laypersons’ understanding of disease, information gathering behaviors, and actions taken during an epidemic. J Biomed Inf. 2005;38(4):298‐313.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren