The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public perceptions and experiences of social distancing and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a UK-based focus group study
Open accessAbstract
Objective: This study explored UK public perceptions and experiences of social distancing and social isolation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: This qualitative study comprised five focus groups, carried out online during the early stages of the UK’s stay at home order (‘lockdown’), and analysed using a thematic approach. Setting: Focus groups took place via online videoconferencing. Participants: Participants (n=27) were all UK residents aged 18 years and older, representing a range of gender, ethnic, age and occupational backgrounds. Results: Qualitative analysis revealed four main themes: (1) loss—participants’ loss of (in-person) social interaction, loss of income and loss of structure and routine led to psychological and emotional ‘losses’ such as loss of motivation, loss of meaning and loss of self-worth; (2) criticisms of government communication—participants reported a lack of trust in government and a lack of clarity in the guidelines around social distancing and isolation; (3) adherence—participants reported high self-adherence to social distancing guidelines but reported seeing or hearing of non-adherence in others; (4) uncertainty around social reintegration and the future—some participants felt they would have lingering concerns over social contact while others were eager to return to high levels of social activity. Most participants, and particularly those in low-paid or precarious employment, reported feeling that the social distancing and isolation associated with COVID-19 policy has had negative impacts on their mental health and well-being during the early stages of the UK’s ‘lockdown’. Conclusions: A rapid response is necessary in terms of public health programming to mitigate the mental health impacts of COVID-19 social distancing and isolation. Social distancing and isolation ‘exit strategies’ must account for the fact that, although some individuals will voluntarily or habitually continue to socially distance, others will seek high levels of social engagement as soon as possible.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
The Psychological Impact of Quarantine and How to Reduce It: Rapid Review of the Evidence
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3532534 · Cited by 16,394
The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30460-8 · Cited by 16,378
Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups.
Kitzinger, J. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 · Cited by 6,939
Holmes, E. A., O'Connor, R. C., Perry, V. H., Tracey, I., Wessely, S., Arseneault, L., Ballard, C., Christensen, H., Cohen Silver, R., Everall, I., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30168-1 · Cited by 5,715
(1997) · Cited by 4,204
Making sense of qualitative data
Coffey, A. J., & Atkinson, P. (1996) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,855
Ferguson, N. M., Laydon, D. J., Nedjati-Gilani, G. L., Imai, N., Ainslie, K. E. C., Baguelin, M., Bhatia, S., Boonyasiri, A., Cucunubá, Z. M., Cuomo-Dannenburg, G., et al. (2020) · Spiral (Imperial College London) · doi:10.25561/77482 · Cited by 3,281
Qualitative Research: Rigour and qualitative research
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6997.109 · Cited by 2,715
Developing Focus Group Research
Barbour, R., & Kitzinger, J. (1999) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849208857 · Cited by 1,599
Eubank, S., Eckstrand, I., Lewis, B., Venkatramanan, S., Marathe, M., & Barrett, C. L. (2020) · Bulletin of Mathematical Biology · doi:10.1007/s11538-020-00726-x · Cited by 881
Cited by
Psychological Impacts of Students on Online Learning During the Pandemic COVID-19
Irawan, A. W., Dwisona, D., & Lestari, M. (2020) · KONSELI : Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling (E-Journal) · doi:10.24042/kons.v7i1.6389 · Cited by 355
Jia, R., Ayling, K., Chalder, T., Massey, A., Broadbent, E., Coupland, C., & Vedhara, K. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040620 · Cited by 329
From Challenge to Opportunity: Virtual Qualitative Research During COVID-19 and Beyond
Keen, S., Lomeli-Rodriguez, M., & Joffe, H. (2022) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069221105075 · Cited by 264
Geirdal, A. Ø., Ruffolo, M., Leung, J., Thygesen, H., Price, D., Bonsaksen, T., & Schoultz, M. (2021) · Journal of Mental Health · doi:10.1080/09638237.2021.1875413 · Cited by 217
Mallett, R., Coyle, C., Kuang, Y., & Gillanders, D. T. (2021) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.09.003 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, S. N., Armitage, C. J., Tampe, T., & Dienes, K.
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e039334
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3043188314
- Cited by
- 537
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 40.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public perceptions and experiences of social distancing and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a UK-based focus group study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039334
- The paper
- Williams, S. N., Armitage, C. J., Tampe, T., & Dienes, K. (2020). Public perceptions and experiences of social distancing and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a UK-based focus group study. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039334
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.