PreprintCited by 296COVID-19 epidemiological studiesCOVID-19 Prevention and ImpactCOVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing

Adherence to the test, trace and isolate system: results from a time series of 21 nationally representative surveys in the UK (the COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses [CORSAIR] study)

Open access
Smith, Louise E, Potts, Henry WW, Amlȏt, Richard, Fear, Nicola T, Michie, Susan, Rubin, G James·2020·BMJ

Preprint — published as 10.1136/bmj.n608

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate rates of adherence to the UK’s test, trace and isolate system over time. Design: Time series of cross-sectional online surveys. Setting: Data were collected between 2 March and 5 August 2020. Participants: 42,127 responses from 31,787 people living in the UK, aged 16 years or over, are presented (21 survey waves, n≈2,000 per wave). Main outcome measures: Identification of the key symptoms of COVID-19 (cough, high temperature / fever, and loss of sense of smell or taste), self-reported adherence to self-isolation if symptomatic, requesting an antigen test if symptomatic, intention to share details of close contacts, self-reported adherence to quarantine if alerted that you had been in contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case. Results: Only 48.9% of participants (95% CI 48.2% to 49.7%) identified key symptoms of COVID-19. Self-reported adherence to test, trace and isolate behaviours was low (self-isolation 18.2%, 95% CI 16.4% to 19.9%; requesting an antigen test 11.9%, 95% CI 10.1% to 13.8%; intention to share details of close contacts 76.1%, 95% CI 75.4% to 76.8%; quarantining 10.9%, 95% CI 7.8% to 13.9%) and largely stable over time. By contrast, intention to adhere to protective measures was much higher. Non-adherence was associated with: men, younger age groups, having a dependent child in the household, lower socioeconomic grade, greater hardship during the pandemic, and working in a key sector. Conclusions: Practical support and financial reimbursement is likely to improve adherence. Targeting messaging and policies to men, younger age groups, and key workers may also be necessary. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC: Test, trace and isolate systems are one of the cornerstones of COVID-19 recovery strategy. The success of the test, trace and isolation system depends on adherence to isolating if symptomatic, getting a test if symptomatic, passing on details of close contacts if infection is confirmed, and quarantining of contacts. Rates of adherence to test, trace and isolate behaviours in the UK need to be systematically investigated. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Self-reported adherence to test, trace and isolate behaviours is low; intention to carry out these behaviours is much higher. Identification of COVID-19 symptoms is also low. Practical support and financial reimbursement are likely to improve adherence to test, trace and isolate behaviours.

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 · 10.1101/2020.09.15.20191957

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • UK surveys found that only 11% of individuals in quarantine declared proper adherence to quarantine rules, but 65% of individuals intended to adhere to quarantine.

    “UK surveys found that only 11% of individuals in quarantine declared proper adherence to quarantine rules, but 65% of individuals intended to adhere to quarantine 13”

    From The epidemiological impact of the NHS COVID-19 app (2021) · cites this paper as [13]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Gollwitzer A, Martel C, Marshall J, Hohs JM, Bargh JA. Connecting self-reported social distancing to real-world behavior at the individual and U.S. State level. PsyArXiv. 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, L. E., Potts, H. W., Amlȏt, R., Fear, N. T., Michie, S., & Rubin, G. J.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Smith, Louise E
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-09-18
Volume
372
Pages
n608-n608
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3144066845
Cited by
296
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 14 · 2012: 1
FWCI
25.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (11/46/21, NIHR-INF-1658)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • University of East Anglia
  • King's College London
  • University of Bristol
  • Public Health England
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › COVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, symptom recognition, close contact tracing, contact tracing, public health communication, public trust in government, risk perception
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Testing, Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Isolation, Contact Tracing, Pandemics

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