CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109COVID-19 Prevention and ImpactInfection Control and VentilationPublic Health Policies and Education

Public perceptions of non-pharmaceutical interventions for reducing transmission of respiratory infection: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

Open access
Teasdale, Emma, Santer, Miriam, Geraghty, Adam W A, Little, Paul, Yardley, Lucy·2014·BMC Public Health
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-589PMC PMC4063987
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions may provide simple, low-cost, effective ways of minimising the transmission and impact of acute respiratory infections in pandemic and non-pandemic contexts. Understanding what influences the uptake of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as hand and respiratory hygiene, mask wearing and social distancing could help to inform the development of effective public health advice messages. The aim of this synthesis was to explore public perceptions of non-pharmaceutical interventions that aim to reduce the transmission of acute respiratory infections. METHODS: Five online databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science) were systematically searched. Reference lists of articles were also examined. We selected papers that used a qualitative research design to explore perceptions and beliefs about non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce transmission of acute respiratory infections. We excluded papers that only explored how health professionals or children viewed non-pharmaceutical respiratory infection control. Three authors performed data extraction and assessment of study quality. Thematic analysis and components of meta-ethnography were adopted to synthesise findings. RESULTS: Seventeen articles from 16 studies in 9 countries were identified and reviewed. Seven key themes were identified: perceived benefits of non-pharmaceutical interventions, perceived disadvantages of non-pharmaceutical interventions, personal and cultural beliefs about infection transmission, diagnostic uncertainty in emerging respiratory infections, perceived vulnerability to infection, anxiety about emerging respiratory infections and communications about emerging respiratory infections. The synthesis showed that some aspects of non-pharmaceutical respiratory infection control (particularly hand and respiratory hygiene) were viewed as familiar and socially responsible actions to take. There was ambivalence about adopting isolation and personal distancing behaviours in some contexts due to their perceived adverse impact and potential to attract social stigma. Common perceived barriers included beliefs about infection transmission, personal vulnerability to respiratory infection and concerns about self-diagnosis in emerging respiratory infections. CONCLUSIONS: People actively evaluate non-pharmaceutical interventions in terms of their perceived necessity, efficacy, acceptability, and feasibility. To enhance uptake, it will be necessary to address key barriers, such as beliefs about infection transmission, rejection of personal risk of infection and concern about the potential costs and stigma associated with some interventions.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2458-14-589

Cites

70 of 70 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?

  • When SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, initial assessments of its potential epidemic impact and intervention options were informed by epidemiological and modelling analyses.

    “In conclusion, when SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, initial assessments of its potential epidemic impact and intervention options were informed by epidemiological and modelling analyses.”

    From Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) mathematical models and disease parameters: a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Background discusses public beliefs about protective behaviours, and Results > Study characteristics describes qualitative studies of SARS and influenza; neither addresses the first identification of SARS-CoV-2. Searches for SARS-CoV-2 and for epidemiological or modelling analyses informing initial impact and intervention assessments found no passage making the claimed point. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The analyses, in the absence of characterisation of the new coronavirus, assumed that its natural history and epidemiology (eg, degree of superspreading) would be similar to those of SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV.

    “The analyses, in the absence of characterisation of the new coronavirus, assumed that its natural history and epidemiology (eg, degree of superspreading) would be similar to those of SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV.25,26,129,130”

    From Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) mathematical models and disease parameters: a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Results sections on study characteristics and diagnostic uncertainty discuss public perceptions of SARS and other respiratory infections, not analyses of a new coronavirus. Searches for superspreading and for an assumption that its natural history resembled SARS-CoV-1 or MERS-CoV found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. [7]WHO World Health Organisation. Pandemic influenza preparedness and response WHO guidance document 2009 23741778
  2. [33]CASP Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research 2013 Oxford Public Health Resource Unit
  3. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/589/prepub

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Teasdale, E., Santer, M., Geraghty, A. W. A., Little, P., & Yardley, L.
Affiliations
University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Teasdale, Emma
ORCID
Venue
BMC Public Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-06-11
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
589-589
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2458-14-589
PMC
PMC4063987
OpenAlex
W2002473926
Semantic Scholar
8de9d69ff6d22a24e6e9af4cdff08a03d01a0f23
Cited by
109
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (SPCR-048)
  • NIHR School for Primary Care Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
Keywords
non-pharmaceutical interventions, acute respiratory infections, public perception, hand hygiene, respiratory hygiene, masking, social distancing, isolation, perceived barriers, stigma, self-diagnosis, public health recommendations
MeSH terms
Nonprescription Drugs, Humans, Influenza, Human, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Respiratory Tract Infections, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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