4.6 Article

Loneliness and COVID-19 preventive behaviours among Japanese adults

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 53-60

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdaa151

关键词

COVID-19; hygiene; Japan; lonely; social distancing

资金

  1. JSPS [20H01584]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20H01584] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that loneliness is negatively associated with engagement in COVID-19 preventive behaviors and is also related to reduced odds for various individual preventive behaviors such as wearing a mask, disinfecting hands, and social distancing when outdoors.
Background There is some evidence that loneliness may be linked to poorer health behaviours. Despite this, there has been little research to date on the relationship between loneliness and COVID-19 preventive behaviours. We studied these associations in a sample of the Japanese population. Methods Data were analysed from an online survey of 2000 adults undertaken in April and May 2020. Loneliness was assessed with the Three-Item Loneliness Scale. Information was also collected on 13 COVID-19 preventive behaviours. Regression analyses were used to examine associations. Results In linear regression models adjusted for demographic and mental health variables, both dichotomous and continuous loneliness measures were negatively associated with engaging in COVID-19 preventive behaviours. Logistic regression analyses further showed that loneliness was also associated with reduced odds for a variety of individual preventive behaviours including wearing a mask (odds ratio [OR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.95), disinfecting hands (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.94) and social distancing when outdoors (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.61-0.92). Conclusions Loneliness is associated with lower engagement in COVID-19 preventive behaviours. Interventions to prevent or ameliorate loneliness during the ongoing pandemic may be important in combating the spread of the coronavirus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据