Abstract
Background Self-isolation was used to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and will likely be used in future infectious disease outbreaks.
Method We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA and SWiM guidelines. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, PsyArXiv, medRxiv, and grey literature sources were searched (1 January 2020 to 13 December 2022) using terms related to COVID-19, isolation, and adherence. Studies were included if they contained original, quantitative data of self-isolation adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic. We extracted definitions of self-isolation, measures used to quantify adherence, adherence rates, and factors associated with adherence. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022377820).
Findings We included 45 studies. Self-isolation was inconsistently defined. Only four studies did not use self-report to measure adherence. Of 41 studies using self-report measures, only one reported reliability; another gave indirect evidence for a lack of validity of the measure. Rates of adherence to self-isolation ranged from 0% to 100%. There was little evidence that self-isolation adherence was associated with socio-demographic or psychological factors.
Interpretation There was no consensus in defining, operationalising, or measuring self-isolation. Only one study presented evidence of the psychometric properties of the measure highlighting the significant risk of bias in included studies. This, and the dearth of scientifically rigorous studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to increase self-isolation adherence, is a fundamental gap in the literature.
Funding This study was funded by Research England Policy Support Fund 2022-23; authors were supported by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response.
Competing Interest Statement
GJR advised the UK's Office for National Statistics on its work relating to self-isolation; papers relating to this work were included as part of the review. LES, AFM, SKB, RD, MVS, RA, TMM, and GJR co-authored papers that were either included in this review or considered during the review process. RA is an employee of the UK Health Security Agency. LES, RA, TMM and GJR were participants of the UK's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies or its subgroups. AFM, SKB, RD, and MVS report no competing interests.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Research England Policy Support Fund 2022-23 (from the allocation to King's College London). LES, AFB, SKB, RA and GJR are supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between the UK Health Security Agency, King's College London and the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, UKHSA, or the Department of Health and Social Care. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All data used were in the public domain, therefore ethical approval was not required.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
No novel data were collected as part of this study. All data are already publicly available.
