Skip to main content
Download PDF

A multi-country survey of the socio-demographic factors associated with adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

BMC Public Health volume 23, Article number: 1413 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Health behaviours are influenced by individual characteristics including age, gender, education and economic level. This study aimed to assess the associations between individual-level determinants and adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures.

Methods

We performed secondary analyses of international data collected using an online survey during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between June and December 2020. The dependent variables were self-reported adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures (wearing of face masks, frequent washing/sanitizing of hands, physical distancing, working remotely). The independent variables were age, sex at birth (female vs male), having a chronic disease related elevated risk for severe COVID-19 (none/little, might be at increased risk, at increased risk), educational level completed (no formal education, primary, secondary vs college/university) and employment status (retiree, students, not employed vs employed). Four multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the associations between the dependent variables and independent variables. Interaction terms with country-income level were tested in regressions to explore its moderating effect.

Results

Out of 16,866 respondents, 12,634 (74.9%) wore masks or face coverings, 12,336 (73.1%) washed or sanitized their hands frequently, 11,464 (68.0%) reported adherence to physical distancing and 5,646 (33.5%) worked remotely. In adjusted analyses, increased age, college/university education, employment, and having risks for severe COVID-19 were associated with significantly higher odds of adhering to COVID-19 preventive measures. Retirees and students had lower odds of adhering to COVID-19 prevention measures than employed individuals. Males had significantly lower odds of wearing face masks (AOR: 0.901), frequent washing/sanitizing hands (AOR: 0.774) and working remotely (AOR: 0.875) compared to females. Country-income level generally moderated the above relationships such that the associations disappeared in lower income countries.

Conclusion

The study findings suggest that the individual socio-demographic factors—age, sex, employment status, education status and having a chronic disease – influence adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures. Findings further reiterate the need for health education and health promotion campaigns on preventive health measures to focus on subpopulations, such as younger males, students and retirees, that require targeted or unique messaging.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures is crucial for global containment efforts. During the initial wave of the pandemic, preventive measures such as face mask usage, handwashing, physical distancing, and avoiding crowded places were advocated to minimize the spread of the virus [1]. Non-adherence to these measures poses a significant public concern and hinders the control of the virus [2], while higher adherence is associated with early containment of the disease [3].

Previous studies have highlighted differences in adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures based on sociodemographic characteristics [4]. These characteristics reflect the influence of broader social and economic factors on compliance with restrictive measures [5]. Age, sex, education level, and chronic disease status have been reported as factors associated with adherence to COVID-19 prevention [5,6,7]. For instance, studies have shown that females [8,9,10], older individuals [11, 12], those with higher education [13, 14], employed individuals [15], and individuals with chronic diseases [16] demonstrate greater adherence. However, these findings are often specific to individual countries, and there is a lack of macro-analyses exploring how these relationships may vary across countries.

Country income level is a macro-level social determinant of health with policy implications. In low-income countries, the out-of-pocket cost of healthcare is high, limiting individuals' access to medical care [17,18,19]. This leads to delayed access to appropriate healthcare, including proper diagnoses [20]. Additionally, households in low-income countries tend to spend less on preventive healthcare, which can be attributed to limited access to healthcare providers and preventive services [21]. Given the variations in healthcare-seeking behaviors based on country income level, differences in the use of COVID-19 preventive measures may also exist.

This study adopts the Health Belief Model [22, 23], which suggests that individuals' adoption of recommended health actions is influenced by their perceived benefits of health information and their self-efficacy in engaging in those actions [24]. Confidence in disease prevention [25, 26] is influenced by age, sex, education level, and the presence of chronic conditions. Previous research has shown that confidence in disease prevention decreases with age and is associated with lower health literacy and income [27]. Females [28,29,30], individuals with chronic diseases [31], and those with higher education [32] tend to have more confidence in their ability to engage in disease prevention actions.

Health efficacy is influenced by social resources such as education, socioeconomic status, and income, resulting in a social gradient in health, where higher levels of social resources correspond to better health outcomes [33, 34]. Country-level income also contributes to this social gradient. Social inequalities can impact the adoption and adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures, and understanding the role of social factors in adherence can inform interventions to mitigate unfavorable social gradients and enhance pandemic control.

This study aims to examine the associations between age, sex, employment status, education status, and the presence of chronic diseases related to elevated risk for severe COVID-19 and adherence to preventive measures during the initial wave of the pandemic. Additionally, we investigate how country-level income moderates these associations. Our hypothesis is that younger age, males, individuals with lower educational status, and those without chronic diseases related to elevated risk for severe COVID-19 would be less likely to adhere to preventive measures, and that country income levels would influence these associations.

Methods

Ethical considerations

The primary study received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the Institute of Public Health of the Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife, Nigeria (HREC No: IPHOAU/12/1557). Additional ethical approvals were obtained from Brazil (CAAE N° 38,423,820.2.0000.0010), India (D-1791-uz and D-1790-uz), Saudi Arabia (CODJU-2006F), and the United Kingdom (13,283/10570).

Study design and study population

The present study involved a secondary analysis of data derived from an international cross-sectional study. The study recruited participants from 152 countries using an online survey platform (Survey Monkey, Momentive Inc.: San Mateo, CA, USA) between July and December 2020, which was conducted during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligibility for study participation was open to individuals aged 18 years and older, and written consent was obtained from all participants. No specific exclusion criteria were applied.

Sample size

The primary study's sample size was determined by considering the highest global prevalence of a mental health disorder in 2019, specifically anxiety disorder (3.94%) [35]. A desired precision estimate of 0.05 and a confidence level of 95% were chosen for an infinite population size [36]. To ensure sufficient representation, the minimum sample size for the pre-survey was set at 59 valid respondents from each of the 193 member states of the United Nations. To account for potential challenges in conducting face-to-face interviews and the risk of missing responses without interviewer guidance and support [37], the sample size was increased by 10%. From a statistical modeling perspective, having a minimum of 10 participants with complete responses per independent variable enables regression analyses with a minimum probability level (p-value) of 0.05 [38]. In this study, the complete data of 16,866 participants (79.9% of the dataset's total of 21,106 respondents) were extracted for analysis.

Participant recruitment

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, participants were recruited using a respondent-driven sampling approach. Initially, 45 members of the MEHEWE Study Group (www.mehewe.org) reached out to potential participants, who were then asked to share the survey link with their contacts worldwide, aiding in the recruitment process. The survey link was also disseminated through various channels, including social media groups (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), network email lists, and WhatsApp groups. Comprehensive information about the survey implementation and data collection tools can be found in previous studies [39,40,41,42,43]. Details on the sample had also been reported [44, 45]. Participants had to check a box to indicate consent to participate to be able to continue with the survey. Also, objectives of the study, duration needed to answer the questionnaire (11 min) and statement mentioning voluntary participation was added before initiating the survey. No identifier data were collected from respondents.

Data collection tool

The developed tool underwent rigorous assessment to evaluate its validity, dimensionality, and reliability. Initially developed in English, it was subsequently translated into French, Spanish, Arabic, and Portuguese to ensure wider accessibility. The study questionnaire achieved an overall content validation index of 0.83, indicating a high level of agreement among experts regarding the content validity of the instrument. Detailed information on the validation process for the data collection tool has been previously published [39].

Dependent variables

The study examined self-reported adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures during the initial wave of the pandemic, including the wearing of face masks, frequent hand washing or sanitizing, practicing physical distancing, and working remotely. Participants were instructed to indicate their adoption of each measure by checking the corresponding box(es). A checked box indicated the individual had implemented the specified measure during the pandemic. The survey questions used for assessing adherence were derived from the pandemic stress index, which achieved a content validity index of 0.90 [39]. Furthermore, the internal consistency of the adherence assessment tool was found to be high, as indicated by a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.80 [39].

Independent variables

The study considered several independent variables: age, sex at birth (male or female), the highest level of education achieved (none, primary, secondary, college/university), and employment status (retirees, students, not employed, employed). Additionally, participants were asked to indicate if they were living with any chronic disease from a provided list. Selecting the checkbox next to a specific disease indicated that the respondent was living with that condition. The list of diseases was designed to categorize respondents into three risk levels for severe COVID-19: little or no risk, potential risk, and high risk [46]. The section of the survey collecting this data achieved a content validity index of 0.83 [39].

Effect modifier/ moderator

Country income level was treated as an effect modifier. Data about country income level was obtained from publicly available data from the 2019 World Bank Data on country classification by Gross National Income [47]. The income level of a country can significantly impact policy formulation and the capacity of healthcare systems to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic [48]. Based on their income levels, countries were classified into four categories: low-income countries (LICs) with a gross national income (GNI) per capita ≤ 1035 USD in 2019, lower middle-income countries (LMICs) with a GNI between 1036 and 4045 USD, upper middle-income countries (UMICs) with a GNI between 4046 and 12,535 USD, and high-income countries (HICs) with a GNI ≥ 12,536 USD.

Data analysis

The raw data were downloaded, cleaned, and imported into SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA) for analysis. Four multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to examine the associations between each dependent variable and the independent variables. To evaluate the moderating effect of country income level on the relationship between the independent variables and the four dependent variables, we calculated the p-value for the interaction effect between country income level and each independent variable. We then divided the sample based on country income level and conducted separate regression analyses with the independent variables. For all models, the adjusted odds ratios (AORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

In Table 1, the dataset consisted of 16,866 respondents. Among them, 11,464 (68.0%) reported adhering to physical distancing, 12,634 (74.9%) reported wearing masks or face coverings, 12,336 (73.1%) reported frequent hand washing or sanitizing, and 5,646 (33.5%) reported working remotely. Most respondents were from lower middle-income countries (LMICs) (53.9%), identified as female (62.3%), had a college/university education (78.1%), were employed (58.0%), and were categorized as having little or no risk for severe COVID-19 (77.9%)

Table 1 The socio-demographic profile of respondents who adhere to COVID-19 preventive measures during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 16,866)
Full size table

Table 2 presents the findings from adjusted multivariate regressions analyzing the associations between the dependent variables and independent variables. Regarding the practice of physical distancing, individuals who may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 had higher odds of adherence (AOR: 1.202; p < 0.001) compared to those with little or no risk. Age was also associated with increased odds of practicing physical distancing (AOR: 1.025; p < 0.001). In terms of education, respondents with no formal education (AOR: 0.134; p < 0.001), primary education (AOR: 0.204; p < 0.001), and secondary education (AOR: 0.660; p < 0.001) had lower odds of physical distancing compared to those with college/university education. Additionally, retirees (AOR: 0.485; p < 0.001) and the unemployed (AOR: 0.655; p < 0.001) had significantly lower odds of practicing physical distancing compared to the employed.

Table 2 Adjusted multivariate regression analysis showing socio-demographic factors associated with adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 16,866)
Full size table

For the use of face masks or face coverings, respondents at increased risk of severe COVID-19 had higher odds of wearing them (AOR: 1.471; p < 0.001) compared to those with little or no risk. Older age was also associated with increased odds of wearing masks or face coverings (AOR: 1.016; p < 0.001). Males had lower odds of wearing face masks or coverings compared to females (AOR: 0.896; p = 0.004). Furthermore, respondents with no formal education (AOR: 0.360; p < 0.001), primary education (AOR: 0.296; p < 0.001), and secondary education (AOR: 0.843; p < 0.001) had lower odds of wearing masks or face coverings compared to college/university graduates. Retirees (AOR: 0.557; p = 0.035), students (AOR: 0.892; p = 0.011), and the unemployed (AOR: 0.823; p < 0.001) had significantly lower odds of wearing masks or face coverings compared to the employed.

Regarding frequent hand washing or sanitizing, respondents who might be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 had higher odds of engaging in this practice (AOR: 1.499; p < 0.001) compared to those with little or no risk. Age was also associated with increased odds of frequent hand washing or sanitizing (AOR: 1.018; p < 0.001). Males had lower odds of practicing frequent hand hygiene compared to females (AOR: 0.769; p < 0.001). Respondents with no formal education (AOR: 0.471; p < 0.001), primary education (AOR: 0.309; p < 0.001), and secondary education (AOR: 0.858; p < 0.001) had lower odds of frequent hand washing or sanitizing compared to college/university graduates. Additionally, retirees (AOR: 0.562; p < 0.001), students (AOR: 0.885; p = 0.020), and the unemployed (AOR: 0.854; p = 0.003) had lower odds of practicing frequent hand hygiene compared to the employed.

Regarding remote work, individuals who might be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 had higher odds of working remotely (AOR: 1.268; p = 0.002) compared to those with little or no risk. Age was also associated with increased odds of remote work (AOR: 1.013; p < 0.001). Males had lower odds of working remotely compared to females (AOR: 0.874; p < 0.001). Respondents with no formal education (AOR: 0.583; p < 0.001), primary education (AOR: 0.382; p < 0.001), and secondary education (AOR: 0.555; p < 0.001) had lower odds of working remotely compared to college/university graduates. Additionally, retirees (AOR: 0.119; p < 0.001), students (AOR: 0.823; p < 0.001), and the unemployed (AOR: 0.369; p < 0.001) had significantly lower odds of working remotely compared to the employed.

Table 3 shows that the practice of physical distancing, country income level significantly influenced the association between all factors and adherence. Specifically, the effect of sex was significant, with males having higher odds of physical distancing than females in LMICs, but lower odds in UMICs and HICs. Older age was associated with higher odds of physical distancing in LICs, LMICs, and HICs, but this association was not statistically significant in UMICs. Participants with lower education status had significantly lower odds of practicing physical distancing compared to those with college/university education only in LMICs and UMICs. Additionally, retirees and the unemployed had significantly higher odds of practicing physical distancing compared to the employed only in UMICs and HICs. Participants who might be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 had significantly higher odds of practicing physical distancing only in UMICs and HICs.

Table 3 Moderating effect of country income level on the association between adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures and socio-demographic factors (N = 16,866)
Full size table

For wearing face masks or coverings, the interactions with sex, employment status, and risk for severe COVID-19 were significant. Males had significantly lower odds of wearing a face mask compared to females only in UMICs and HICs. Retirees and students had significantly higher odds of wearing a face mask compared to the employed in UMICs and HICs. Only in HICs did unemployed participants have significantly higher odds of wearing a face mask compared to the employed. Participants who might be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 had significantly higher odds of wearing a face mask in LMICs, UMICs, and HICs.

Country income level also moderated the association between frequent hand washing or sanitization and sex and employment status. Males had significantly lower odds compared to females in LMICs, UMICs, and HICs. Students had significantly higher odds of sanitizing their hands frequently in LMICs and UMICs, but not in LICs or HICs, when compared to employed participants. Unemployed participants had significantly higher odds of sanitizing their hands only in HICs, whereas the associations in LICs, LMICs, and UMICs were statistically significant compared to employed participants.

The table also shows that country income level significantly modified the association between working remotely and educational level and employment status. Participants with primary or secondary education had significantly lower odds of working remotely than those with college/university education in LMICs, UMICs, or HICs, but not in LICs. Additionally, retirees, students, and unemployed individuals had significantly higher odds of working remotely than employed participants in LMICs, UMICs, and HICs, but not in LICs.

Discussion

The results of the study indicate that older individuals, those who are employed, have a college/university education, and have a higher risk for severe COVID-19, are more likely to adhere to all the studied COVID-19 preventive measures. While there was no significant difference in physical distancing behavior between male and female respondents, it was observed that male respondents appeared to be less likely to adhere to the other three COVID-19 preventive measures.

The associations between age and adherence to physical distancing measures seem to be influenced by the income level of the county. The observed higher likelihood of adhering to physical distancing with increased age was not observed in LIMCs. Additionally, while males were generally less likely than females to adhere to wearing face masks and sanitizing hands, this gender difference was not evident in LICs. Similarly, the associations between wearing face masks, physical distancing, hand sanitizing, and working remotely based on employment status were not observed in LICs. However, these associations held to varying degrees among HICs, UMICs, and LMICs. Although higher education levels, such as college/university education, were generally associated with a greater likelihood of adhering to all preventive measures, this relationship was not observed in LICs. Lastly, individuals at an increased risk of severe COVID-19 seem more likely to practice physical distancing and wear face masks in HICs and UMICs but were only more likely to wear face masks in LMICs.

These study findings contribute to the global data on factors associated with adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures. There are variations between countries in relation to the specific factors associated with the adherence to the COVID-19 preventive measures. For example, the use of hand hygiene was high in regions in the Democratic Republic of Congo that had experienced of Ebola [49]. Also, the use of facemasks was high in South Korea that had experienced MERS and had health concerns about the effects of particulate matter [50]. The present study provides information generated from a large sample of participants from different countries that can allow inferences to inform global actions.

The generalisability of the study is, however, limited by some study methods. These include the use of a non-probability sampling technique that increases the risk of excluding participants based on their inability to access the internet, use smartphones or due to language barriers. This sampling bias skewed the data towards populations with higher education levels [51, 52]. This was because data was collected electronically during the first wave of the pandemic when movement was highly restricted in many countries. Thus, the ability to use a probability sampling technique for data collection was limited [53, 54]. Nevertheless, considering the urgency for information during the COVID-19 pandemic, the ethical imperative to generate new information during the pandemic, and the restrictions on physical contact, the use of an online survey was a suitable approach [54]. It is important, therefore, to interpret our findings within these limitations and to take into consideration that what is reported in the study cannot be interpreted as population prevalence estimates. The cross-sectional design also limits the ability to make causal-effect inferences from the study findings. Furthermore, respondents had to self-report their health status by responding to a single question. This may be liable to response bias. Despite these limitations, the study highlights findings that provide a wealth of data relevant to the future pandemics of the magnitude of COVID-19.

The findings of the study indicate that individuals with lower educational status, younger age, male gender, retired or unemployed status, or studying were less likely to adhere to COVID-19 preventive measures. These observations align with prior studies [49, 55,56,57,58,59]. However, the associations between these factors and adherence were influenced by the country of residence, with greater variability in adherence levels observed in HICs and UMICs compared to LMICs and LICs. For instance, in HICs, UMICs, and LICs, adherence to physical distancing was more likely to occur with increased age, which may be attributed to older individuals having higher risk factors for COVID-19 and being more aware of preventive measures [60, 61]. Adherence may also have been lower in people with younger age because of the adduced lower risk of contracting COVID-19 among adolescents and public health messages had focused mainly on adults [62].

Like other studies, we also observed that females exhibited better adherence to COVID-19 preventive behaviors compared to males [63,64,65]. This gender difference may be due to females perceiving COVID-19 as a serious health problem with severe consequences [56]. Additionally, women's higher risk aversion tendencies [65,66,67] may contribute to this observed difference. These findings may partly explain the higher COVID-19 mortality rates among men, although other social and biological factors are also involved [68,69,70]. Bridging the gender gap can be facilitated by firsthand experiences of the pandemic and living in households rather than living alone [71]. Gender differences in the use of preventive measures were observed in HICs, UMICs, and LMICs but not in LICs. This finding emphasizes the importance of gender-sensitive messaging in COVID-19 prevention and contributes to the understanding of gender disparities in the impact of COVID-19 and health outcomes.

Furthermore, individuals who perceived themselves to be at risk of severe COVID-19 were more likely to adhere to preventive measures. Interestingly, those who were at risk did not demonstrate higher adherence, and this improved adherence was only observed in HICs and UMICs. Many LICs and LMICs faced challenges in making masks and hand sanitizers readily available to their citizens during the pandemic, primarily due to issues with affordability and supply [72]. However, LICs and LMICs also have a higher proportion of younger populations who were poorly adhering to COVID-19 preventive measures when compared to adults. A prior meta-analysis indicated that young people were least likely to comply with physical distancing, face masking. Their hand hygiene practice was the best [73]. Young people were also less likely to work remotely in LICs and LMICs because of the poor online schooling opportunities accessible to them [74]. Cultural barriers and poorer community perception of danger in lower-income countries may also play a role [75, 76]. Additionally, the higher number of COVID-19 deaths in HICs may contribute to better adherence to preventive measures, in line with the health belief model's proposition that risk perception influences health-related behaviors. Further research is needed to explore this finding.

Finally, we observed fewer sociodemographic differences in adherence levels in LICs compared to HICs and UMICs, and to a lesser extent in LMICs. The significant sociodemographic disparities observed in HICs and UMICs, compared to LMICs and LICs, suggest that macro-level factors may have influenced individual responses to the pandemic. Country income level plays a substantial role in the observed disparities in COVID-19 response [77, 78]. However, little is known about how these macro-level factors impact individual responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Public policies that promote welfare during crises, such as family policies, employment policies, income support, social insurance policies, area-based initiatives, and education policies, may influence the adoption of COVID-19 preventive measures [79]. The study findings highlight the need to study the complex interrelationship between sociodemographic factors, adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures, and macro-level factors. The index of stringency in compliance with preventive measures indicates better compliance in HICs and UMICs compared to LMICs and LICs, respectively [80].

In conclusion, we observed that younger individuals, males, those with lower educational status, and those without chronic disease related elevated risk for severe COVID-19 were less likely adhere to COVID-19 preventive measures, and that country income levels moderated these associations. The study findings suggests that although micro-social determinants of adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures may be influenced by pre-existing health behavior determinants, the country income level appears to be a macro-social factor that moderates the micro-social determinants of adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures. Understanding how and why country income level moderates the socio-demographic determinants of adherence to preventive measures is crucial.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AOR:

Adjusted Odds Ratio

CI:

Confidence Interval

COVID-19:

Coronavirus infectious disease 2019

GNI:

Gross national income

HICs:

High‐income countries

ICT:

Information and communications technology

LICs:

Low‐income countries

LMICs:

Lower middle‐income countries

SD:

Standard Deviation

UMICs:

Upper middle‐income countries

USD:

United States Dollars

References

  1. World Health Organization. Strengthening Preparedness for COVID-19 in Cities and Urban Settings. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/strengthening-preparedness-for-covid-19-in-cities-and-urban-settings. Accessed 11 Sept 2022.

  2. Azene ZN, Merid MW, Muluneh AG, Geberu DM, Kassa GM, Yenit MK, et al. Adherence towards COVID-19 mitigation measures and its associated factors among Gondar City residents: A community-based cross-sectional study in Northwest Ethiopia. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(8):e0256954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256954.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Block R, Berg A, Lennon RP, Miller EL, Nunez-Smith M. African American adherence to COVID-19 public health recommendations. Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2020;4(3):e166–70. https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20200707-01.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Dagne H, Alemu KA, Dagnew B, Practice P, Factors A, of Coronavirus disease, et al. (COVID-19) Outbreak among Educated Ethiopians: An online Based Cross-sectional Survey. Res Sq. 2019;2020:1–22.

  5. Kabito GG, Alemayehu M, Mekonnen TH, et al. Community’s perceived high risk of coronavirus infections during early phase of epidemics are significantly influenced by socio-demographic background, in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional -study. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0242654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242654. (Nov. 15).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Amit AA. Social determinants and adherence to recommended COVID-19 vaccination among the Arab ethnic minority: a syndemics framework. Front Public Health. 2022;28(10):1016372. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1016372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. De Lusignan S, Dorward J, Correa A, Jones N, Akinyemi O, Amirthalingam G, et al. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 among patients in the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre primary care network: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(9):1034–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30371-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Okten IO, Gollwitzer A, Oettingen G. Gender differences in preventing the spread of coronavirus. Behavioral Science & Policy. 2020; https://behavioralpolicy.org/journal_issue/COVID-19/.

  9. Nzaji MK, Ngoie MG, Mbidi MJ, Kilolo NUE, Kangulu IB, Banza NDB, et al. Predictors of non-adherence to public health instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. J Multidisciplinary Healthc. 2020;13:1215–21. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S274944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Galasso V, Pons V, Profeta P, Becher M, Brouard S, Foucault M. Gender differences in COVID-19 attitudes and behavior: Panel evidence from eight countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117(44):27285–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lin T, Harris EA, Heemskerk A, Van Bavel JJ, Ebner NC. A multi-national test on self-reported compliance with COVID-19 public health measures: the role of individual age and gender demographics and countries’ developmental status. Soc Sci Med. 2021;286: 114335.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Daoust J-F. Elderly people and responses to COVID-19 in 27 Countries. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7):e0235590. https://doi.org/10.1371/j.pone.0235590.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Masoud AT, Zaazouee MS, Elsayed SM, Ragab KM, Kamal EM, Alnasser YT, Assar A, Nourelden AZ, Istatiah LJ, Abd-Elgawad MM, Abdelsattar AT. KAP-COVIDGLOBAL: a multinational survey of the levels and determinants of public knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19. BMJ Open. 2021;11(2): e043971.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pförtner, TK., Dohle, S. Hower, K.I. Trends in educational disparities in preventive behaviours, risk perception, perceived effectiveness and trust in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. BMC Public Health. 2022;22:903. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13341-3.

  15. Bante A, Mersha A, Tesfaye A, Tsegaye B, Shibiru S, Ayele G, Girma M. Adherence with COVID-19 preventive measures and associated factors among residents of dirashe district. South Ethiop Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021;15:237–49. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S293647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Silesh M, Demisse TL, Taye BT, Desta K, Kitaw TM, Mekuria AD, Tafesse TT, Fenta B. Compliance with COVID-19 preventive measures and associated factors among women attending antenatal care at public health facilities of Debre Berhan town. Ethiopia Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:4561–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S330932.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Banerjee A, Duflo E, Glennerster R, Kinnan C. The miracle of microfinance? evidence from a randomized evaluation. Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2015;7(1):22–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cunningham PJ. Chronic burdens: the persistently high out-of-pocket health care expenses faced by many Americans with chronic conditions. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009:1–14.

  19. Dupas P, Robinson J. Savings constraints and microenterprise development: evidence from a eld experiment in Kenya. Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2013;5(1):163–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen J, Dupas P, Schaner S. Price subsidies, diagnostic tests and targeting of malaria treatment: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2015;105(2):605–45.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dupas P. Health Behavior in Developing Countries. Annual Review of Economics, 2011; 3: Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://web.stanford.edu/~pdupas/AR_health_behavior.pdf.

  22. Rosenstock IM. Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Monogr. 1974;2:328–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Becker MH. The health belief model and sick role behavior. Health Educ Monogr. 1974;2:409–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Corcoran, N. (Ed.). Communicating health: Strategies for health promotion. SAGE. 2007.

  25. Clark NM, Dodge JA. Exploring self-efficacy as a predictor of disease management. Health Educ Behav. 1999;26(1):72–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819902600107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Agarwal G, Habing K, Pirrie M, Angeles R, Marzanek F, Parascandalo J. Assessing health literacy among older adults living in subsidized housing: a cross-sectional study. Can J Public Health. 2018;109:401–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Fraser C, Polito S. A comparative study of self-efficacy in men and women with multiple sclerosis. J Neurosci Nurs. 2007;39(2):102–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01376517-200704000-00006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Robles B, Smith LV, Ponce M, Piron J, Kuo T. The influence of gender and self-efficacy on healthy eating in a low-income urban population affected by structural changes to the food environment. J Obesity. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/908391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dzerounian J, Pirrie M, AlShenaiber L, et al. Health knowledge and self-efficacy to make health behaviour changes: a survey of older adults living in Ontario social housing. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:473. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03116-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Padidar S-m, Liao S, Magagula S, Mahlaba TAM, Nhlabatsi NM, Lukas S. Assessment of early COVID-19 compliance to and challenges with public health and social prevention measures in the Kingdom of Eswatini, using an online survey. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(6):e0253954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253954.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Gobeil-Lavoie A, Chouinard M, Danish A, et al. Characteristics of self-management among patients with complex health needs: a thematic analysis review. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e028344. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028344.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Marmot MG, Stansfeld S, Patel C, North F, Head J, White I, et al. Health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study. Lancet. 1991;337:1387–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Marmot MG, Mcdowall ME. Mortality decline and widening social inequalities. Lancet. 1986;328:274–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Statistica. Percentage of world population with select mental health disorders as of 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/979852/prevalence-of-mental-health-disorders-globally/.

  36. Eng J. Sample size estimation: How many individuals should be studied? Radiology. 2003;227:309–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mirzaei A, Carter SR, Patanwala AE, Schneider CR. Missing data in surveys: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022;18(2):2308–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilson VanVoorhis CR, Morgan BL. Understanding power rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials Quant Methods Psychol. 2007;3(2):43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. El Tantawi M, Folayan MO, Nguyen AL, Aly NM, Ezechi O, Uzochukwu BSC, et al. Validation of a COVID-19 mental health and wellness survey questionnaire. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1509. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13825-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Nguyen AL, Brown B, Tantawi ME, Ndembi N, Okeibunor J, Mohammed A, Folayan MO. Time to scale-up research collaborations to address the global impact of COVID-19 - a commentary. Health Behav Policy Rev. 2021;8(3):277–80. https://doi.org/10.14485/hbpr.8.3.9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Ellakany P, Zuñiga RAA, El Tantawi M, Brown B, Aly NM, Ezechi O, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on student’ sleep patterns, sexual activity, screen use, and food intake: A global survey. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0262617. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262617.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Nzimande NP, El Tantawi M, Zuñiga RAA, Opoku-Sarkodie R, Brown B, Ezechi OC, Uzochukwu BSC, Ellakany P, Aly NM, Nguyen AL, Folayan MO. Sex differences in the experience of COVID-19 post-traumatic stress symptoms by adults in South Africa. BMC Psychiatry. 2022;22(1):238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-03883-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Folayan MO, Ibigbami O, ElTantawi M, Abeldaño GF, Ara E, Ayanore MA, et al. Factors associated with COVID-19 pandemic induced post-traumatic stress symptoms among adults living with and without HIV in Nigeria: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. 2022;22(1):48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03617-0.Erratum.In:BMCPsychiatry.2022;22(1):145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Folayan MO, Abeldaño Zuniga RA, Abeldaño GF, Quadri MFA, Jafer M, Yousaf MA, Ellakany P, Nzimande N, Ara E, Al-Khanati NM, Khalid Z, Lawal F, Roque M, Lusher J, Popoola BO, Khan AT, Ayanore MA, Gaffar B, Virtanen JI, Aly NM, Okeibunor JC, El Tantawi M, Nguyen AL. Is self-reported depression, HIV status, COVID-19 health risk profile and SARS-CoV-2 exposure associated with difficulty in adhering to COVID-19 prevention measures among residents in West Africa? BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):2057. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14429-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Folayan MO, Abeldaño Zuñiga RA, Virtanen JI, El Tantawi M, Abeldaño GF, Ishabiyi AO, Jafer M, Al-Khanati NM, Quadri MFA, Yousaf MA, Ellakany P, Nzimande N, Ara E, Khalid Z, Lawal FB, Lusher J, Popoola BO, Idigbe I, Khan AT, Ayanore MA, Gaffar B, Osamika BE, Aly NM, Ndembi N, Nguyen AL. Associations between COVID-19 testing status, non-communicable diseases and HIV status among residents of sub-Saharan Africa during the first wave of the pandemic. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):535. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07498-w.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Folayan MO, Ibigbami O, Brown B, et al. Differences in COVID-19 Preventive Behavior and Food Insecurity by HIV Status in Nigeria. AIDS Behav. 2022;26(3):739–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-021-03433-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. World Bank. World Bank country and lending groups. 2020. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.

  48. Shadmi E, Chen Y, Dourado I, et al. Health equity and COVID-19: global perspectives. Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(1):104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01218-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Ditekemena JD, Nkamba DM, Muhindo HM, Siewe JNF, Luhata C, Van den Bergh R, et al. Factors associated with adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): results of an online survey. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e043356. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043356.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Lim S, Yoon HI, Song KH, Kim ES, Kim HB. Face masks and containment of COVID-19: experience from South Korea. J Hosp Infect. 2020;106(1):206–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.06.017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Wright KB. Researching internet-based populations: advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. J Comput-Med Commun 2005;10: JCMC1034.

  52. Menon V, Muraleedharan A. Internet-based surveys: relevance, methodological considerations and troubleshooting strategies. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33: e100264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pierce M, McManus S, Jessop C, et al. Says who? The significance of sampling in mental health surveys during COVID-19. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(7):567–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30237-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Hensen B, Mackworth-Young CRS, Simwinga M, Abdelmagid N, Banda J, Mavodza C, Doyle AM, Bonell C, Weiss HA. Remote data collection for public health research in a COVID-19 era: ethical implications, challenges and opportunities. Health Policy Plan. 2021;36(3):360–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Abeya SG, Barkesa SB, Sadi CG, et al. Adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures and associated factors in Oromia regional state of Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0257373. https://doi.org/10.1371/j.pone.0257373.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Bish A, Michie S. Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: A review. Br J Health Psychol. 2010;15:797–824.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Hassan MM, Kalam MdA, Alam M, et al. Understanding the community perceptions and knowledge of bats and transmission of nipah virus in Bangladesh. Animals. 2020;10:1814.

  58. Wirz C, Schwakopf J, Brossard D. Self-reported compliance and attitudes about social distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak. 2020. Available from: https://osf.io/bv28d/.

  59. Honarvar B, Lankarani KB, Kharmandar A, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, risk perceptions, and practices of adults toward COVID-19: a population and field-based study from Iran. Int J Public Health. 2020;65:731–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Luo Y, Cheng Y, Sui M. The Moderating Effects of Perceived Severity on the Generational Gap in Preventive Behaviors during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the U.S. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:2011.

  61. Pew Research Center. Worries About Coronavirus Surge, as Most Americans Expect a Recession–or Worse. March 26 2020. Available at: https://www.people-press.org/2020/03/26/worries-about-coronavirussurge-as-most-americans-expect-a-recession-or-worse/. Accessed 8 Nov 2022.

  62. Siebach MK, Piedimonte G, Ley SH. COVID-19 in childhood: Transmission, clinical presentation, complications and risk factors. Pediat Pulmonol. 2021;56(6):1342–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Abdelrahman M. Personality traits, risk perception, and protective behaviors of arab residents of qatar during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00352-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Ferdous Mostz, Islam MdS, Sikder MdT, Mosaddek ASMd, Zegarra-Valdivia JA, Gozal D. Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding COVID-19 outbreak in Bangladesh: an online-based cross-sectional study. Plos One. 2020;15:e0239254.

  65. Rana IA, Bhatti SS, Aslam AB, Jamshed A, Ahmad J, Shah AA. COVID-19 risk perception and coping mechanisms: Does gender make a difference? Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021;55: 102096.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Galasso V, Pons V, Profeta P, Becher M, Brouard S, Foucault M. Gender differences in COVID-19 attitudes and behavior: Panel evidence from eight countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(44):27285–91. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012520117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Bates BR, Moncayo AL, Costales JA, Herrera-Cespedes CA, Grijalva MJ. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among ecuadorians during the outbreak: an online cross-sectional survey. J Community Health. 2020;45:1158–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Fabião J, Sassi B, Pedrollo EF, Gerchman F, Kramer CK, Leitão CB, Pinto LC. Why do men have worse COVID-19-related outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis with sex adjusted for age. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2022;55:e11711. https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X2021e11711.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. de la Vega R, Ruíz-Barquin R, Boros S, Szabo A. Could attitudes toward COVID-19 in Spain render men more vulnerable than women? Glob Public Health. 2020;15:1278–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1791212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Pérez-López FR, Tajada M, Savirón-Cornudella R, Sánchez-Prieto M, Chedraui P, Terán E. Coronavirus disease 2019 and gender-related mortality in European countries: a meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2020;141:59–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.06.017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Croson R, Gneezy U. Gender differences in preferences. J Econ Lit. 2009;47:448–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Tucho GT, Kumsa DM. Universal use of face masks and related challenges During COVID-19 in developing countries. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:511–7. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S298687.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Li F, Liang W, Rhodes RE, Duan Y, Wang X, Shang B, Yang Y, Jiao J, Yang M, Supriya R, Baker JS, Yi L. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the preventive behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic among children and adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1201. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13585-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Online learning cannot just be for those who can afford its technology. Nature. 2020;585(7826):482. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02709-3.

  75. Tesfaw A, Arage G, Teshome F, Taklual W, Seid T, Belay E, et al. Community risk perception and barriers for the practice of COVID-19 prevention measures in Northwest Ethiopia: A qualitative study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9):e0257897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257897x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Aduh U, Folayan MO, Afe A, Onyeaghala AA, Ajayi IO, Coker M, Tebeje YK, Ndembi N. Risk perception, public health interventions, and Covid-19 pandemic control in sub-saharan Africa. J Public Health Africa. 2021.

  77. Bayati M. Why Is COVID-19 More concentrated in countries with high economic status? Iran J Public Health. 2021;50(9):1926–9. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v50i9.7081.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Gebru AA, Birhanu T, Wendimu E, Ayalew AF, Mulat S, Abasimel HZ, Kazemi A, Tadesse BA, Gebru BA, Deriba BS, Zeleke NS, Girma AG, Munkhbat B, Yusuf QK, Luke AO, Hailu D. Global burden of COVID-19: Situational analysis and review. Hum Antibodies. 2021;29(2):139–48. https://doi.org/10.3233/HAB-200420.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. McAllister A, Fritzell S, Almroth M, Harber-Aschan L, Larsson S, Burström B. How do macro-level structural determinants affect inequalities in mental health? - a systematic review of the literature. Int J Equity Health. 2018;17(1):180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0879-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Kakietek JJ, Eberwein JD, Stacey N, Newhouse D, Yoshida N. Foregone healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic: early survey estimates from 39 low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy Plan. 2022;37(6):771–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czac024.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate all the participants who provided data and contributed their time to make this study possible.

Funding

Authors provided personal funds to conduct this study. A.L.N. was supported by a grant from the NIH/NIA (K01 AG064986-01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mental Health and Wellness Study Group, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

    Morenike Oluwatoyin Folayan, Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga, Jorma I. Virtanen, Oliver C. Ezechi, Muhammad Abrar Yousaf, Mohammed Jafer, Ala’a B. Al-Tammemi, Passent Ellakany, Eshrat Ara, Martin Amogre Ayanore, Balgis Gaffar, Nourhan M. Aly, Ifeoma Idigbe, Joanne Lusher, Maha El Tantawi & Annie L. Nguyen

  2. Department of Child Dental Health, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

    Morenike Oluwatoyin Folayan

  3. Centre for Social Data Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga

  4. Postgraduate Department, University of Sierra Sur, Oaxaca, Mexico

    Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga

  5. Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

    Jorma I. Virtanen

  6. The Centre for Reproductive and Population Health Studies, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria

    Oliver C. Ezechi

  7. Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Virtual Univesity of Pakistan, Lahore, Pakistan

    Muhammad Abrar Yousaf

  8. Dental Public Health Division, Faculty of Dentistry, Jazan University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

    Mohammed Jafer

  9. Applied Science Research Center, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan

    Ala’a B. Al-Tammemi

  10. Migration Health Division, International Organization for Migration, Amman, Jordan

    Ala’a B. Al-Tammemi

  11. Department of Substitutive Dental SciencesCollege of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

    Passent Ellakany

  12. Department of Psychology, Governemnt College for Women, MA Road, Srinagar, J&K, India

    Eshrat Ara

  13. Department of Health Policy Planning and Management, Fred N. Binka School of Public Health, University of Health and Allied Sciences, Ho, Ghana

    Martin Amogre Ayanore

  14. Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

    Balgis Gaffar

  15. Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

    Nourhan M. Aly

  16. Clinical Sciences Department, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Lagos, Nigeria

    Ifeoma Idigbe

  17. Provost’s Group, Regent’s University, London, UK

    Joanne Lusher

  18. Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

    Maha El Tantawi

  19. Department of Family Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Annie L. Nguyen

Authors
  1. Morenike Oluwatoyin Folayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jorma I. Virtanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oliver C. Ezechi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Muhammad Abrar Yousaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mohammed Jafer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ala’a B. Al-Tammemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Passent Ellakany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Eshrat Ara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Martin Amogre Ayanore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Balgis Gaffar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Nourhan M. Aly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ifeoma Idigbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Joanne Lusher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Maha El Tantawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Annie L. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.O.F conceived the study. The Project was managed by M.O.F., M.E.T., O.C.E., and A.L.N. Data curating was done by N.M.A. Data analysis was conducted by R.A.A.Z. M.O.F developed the first draft of the document. R.A.A.Z, J.I.V., O.C.E., M.A.Y., M.J., A.B.A-T., P.E., E.A., M.A.A., B.G. N.M.A. I.I., J.L, M.E.T. and A.L.N. All read the draft manuscript and made inputs prior to the final draft. All authors approved the final manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morenike Oluwatoyin Folayan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval of the current study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at Institute of Public Health of the Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife, Nigeria (HREC No: IPHOAU/12/1557) as the lead partner for this study. The protocol was developed in accordance with international and national research guidelines. The study was performed in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided written informed consent before taking the survey.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Martin Ayanore and Jorma Virtanen are Associate Editors, BMC Public Health. Morenike Oluwatoyin Folayan and Maha El Tantawi are Senior Editor Board members at BMC Oral Health. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Folayan, M.O., Abeldaño Zuñiga, R.A., Virtanen, J.I. et al. A multi-country survey of the socio-demographic factors associated with adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health 23, 1413 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16279-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16279-2

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us