CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 422COVID-19 Prevention and ImpactPublic Health Policies and EducationCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to improve adherence with quarantine: rapid review of the evidence

Open access
Webster, R.K., Brooks, S.K., Smith, L.E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Rubin, G.J.·2020·Public Health
DOI 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.03.007PMC PMC7194967

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The December 2019 outbreak of coronavirus has once again thrown the vexed issue of quarantine into the spotlight, with many countries asking their citizens to 'self-isolate' if they have potentially come into contact with the infection. However, adhering to quarantine is difficult. Decisions on how to apply quarantine should be based on the best available evidence to increase the likelihood of people adhering to protocols. We conducted a rapid review to identify factors associated with adherence to quarantine during infectious disease outbreaks. STUDY DESIGN: The study design is a rapid evidence review. METHODS: We searched Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science for published literature on the reasons for and factors associated with adherence to quarantine during an infectious disease outbreak. RESULTS: We found 3163 articles and included 14 in the review. Adherence to quarantine ranged from as little as 0 up to 92.8%. The main factors which influenced or were associated with adherence decisions were the knowledge people had about the disease and quarantine procedure, social norms, perceived benefits of quarantine and perceived risk of the disease, as well as practical issues such as running out of supplies or the financial consequences of being out of work. CONCLUSIONS: People vary in their adherence to quarantine during infectious disease outbreaks. To improve this, public health officials should provide a timely, clear rationale for quarantine and information about protocols; emphasise social norms to encourage this altruistic behaviour; increase the perceived benefit that engaging in quarantine will have on public health; and ensure that sufficient supplies of food, medication and other essentials are provided.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.03.007

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of included studies and reasons for exclusion.
Fig. 1 Flow diagram of included studies and reasons for exclusion.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Summary of key recommendations.
Fig. 2 Summary of key recommendations.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 422

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Webster, R. K., Brooks, S. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., & Rubin, G. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Webster, R.K.
ORCID
Venue
Public Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
182
Pages
163-169
ISSN
0033-3506 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.puhe.2020.03.007
PMC
PMC7194967
OpenAlex
W3012344084
Cited by
422
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 148 · 2020: 79
FWCI
15.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Keywords
self-isolation, infectious disease outbreaks, COVID-19 pandemic, social norms, risk perception, perceived benefits, public health communication, altruism
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Culture, Disease Outbreaks, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Pneumonia, Viral, Public Health, Quarantine, Time Factors, Coronavirus Infections, Guideline Adherence, Pandemics, Sociological Factors, Social Norms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review