Publication date: 

6 Jul 2024

Ref: 

Smith L. E., Martin A. F., Brooks S. K., Davies R., Stein M. V., Amlôt R., Marteau T. M., Rubin G. J. (2024). Measuring and increasing rates of self-isolation in the context of infectious diseases:. Public Health

Author(s): 

Smith L. E., Martin A. F., Brooks S. K., Davies R., Stein M. V., Amlôt R., Marteau T. M., Rubin G. J.

Publication type: 

Article

Abstract: 

Objectives This study aimed to investigate (1) definitions of self-isolation used during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) measures used to quantify adherence and their reliability, validity, and acceptability; (3) rates of self-isolation adherence; and (4) factors associated with adherence. Study design This was a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO record CRD42022377820). Methods MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, PsyArXiv, medRxiv, and grey literature sources were searched (1 January 2020 to 13 December 2022) using terms related to COVID-19, isolation, and adherence. Studies were included if they contained original, quantitative data of self-isolation adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic. We extracted definitions of self-isolation, measures used to quantify adherence, adherence rates, and factors associated with adherence. Results We included 45 studies. Self-isolation was inconsistently defined. Four studies did not use self-report measures. Of 41 studies using self-report, one reported reliability; another gave indirect evidence for the lack of validity of the measure. Rates of adherence to self-isolation for studies with only some concerns of bias were 51%–86% for COVID-19 cases, 78%–94% for contacts, and 16% for people with COVID-19-like symptoms. There was little evidence that self-isolation adherence was associated with sociodemographic or psychological factors. Conclusions There was no consensus in defining, operationalising, or measuring self-isolation, resulting in significant risk of bias in included studies. Future definitions of self-isolation should state behaviours to be enacted and duration. People recommended to self-isolate should be given support. Public health campaigns should aim to increase perceived effectiveness of self-isolation and promote accurate information about susceptibility to infection.