Identifying Behaviors Practiced By Individuals to Avoid COVID-19: Development of the Content of the Physical Distancing Scale – COVID-19 (PDS-C19)
Author(s)
Powell PA1, Maia T2, Arnetorp S3, Yokota RTC4, Herring TA5, Lloyd A6, Marcus J7, Severens JL8, Venkatesan S9, Eckerd M9, Taylor S9, Williams P10, Ware Jr. JE11
1University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK, 2IQVIA, Porto Salvo, Oeiras, Portugal, 3AstraZeneca, Gothenberg, Västergötland, Sweden, 4P95, Leuven, Flemish Brabant, Belgium, 5AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, USA, 6Acaster Lloyd Consulting Ltd, London, UK, 7IQVIA, US, Washington, DC, USA, 8Severens HTA Consultancy, Venray, Limburg, Netherlands, 9AstraZeneca, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK, 10IQVIA, Courbevoie, Île-de-France, France, 11John Ware Research Group, Watertown, MA, USA
OBJECTIVES: To assess the continued burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on high-risk populations, it is crucial to understand how individuals continue practicing behaviors to avoid COVID-19. This research’s objective was to develop a short questionnaire to measure physical distancing (PD) behaviors to avoid COVID-19.
METHODS: Item development was informed by a targeted literature review (TLR) to identify existing COVID-19-related PD questionnaires, review of health authorities’ public health guidance, and four focus groups (FGs) with individuals at high-risk of severe COVID-19 (April-July 2022). Test items were piloted with high-risk individuals in two asynchronous online forums (OF1, OF2; both 1-week duration) involving the same participants (UK, US, Canada, Spain) between July-August 2022. OF1 aimed to understand item relevance and inform adaptations; OF2 aimed to confirm adequacy of updated items.
RESULTS: No COVID-19-specific validated questionnaires focusing on PD were identified in the TLR. Country-level and World Health Organization guidance largely focused on PD-related concepts: people avoidance (crowds, busy places) and activities involving people (work/school/leisure). Nonetheless, country-specificities were present (e.g., embracing when greeting, France). In FGs (N=14 participants), similar PD-related avoidance behaviors were identified. Eight test items were initially developed to capture past 4-week PD behaviors whilst minimizing country specificities. In OF1 (N=23), all participants comprehended the term ‘avoiding COVID-19’ and most (N=16, 69.6%) agreed the “right level of questions (were) asked”. Some participants suggested formatting (e.g., “simplify things”) and wording (e.g., “change ‘meetings’ to ‘gatherings’”) modifications. Most participants (N=20, 87.0%) could recall their behaviors back to the beginning of the pandemic. After modifications, in OF2 (N=22) most participants (N=19, 86.4%) believed items were all relevant (e.g., “covered every scenario”). After analyzing both forum insights, an additional item was included (non-essential travel) to complement “essential travel”.
CONCLUSIONS: The novel Physical Distancing Scale COVID-19 (PDS-C19) was well understood and included avoidance behaviors relevant to individuals at high-risk of COVID-19.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 26, Issue 11, S2 (December 2023)
Code
PCR173
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Instrument Development, Validation, & Translation
Disease
Infectious Disease (non-vaccine), No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas