The role of personality traits in following quarantine orders during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Patients’ personalities seem to affect their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined the association of personality traits and characteristics of Iranian COVID-19 outpatients with their compliance to nonmandatory quarantine orders. This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2020-2021 on 97 COVID-19 outpatients. The temperament and character inventory-revised short version (TCI-RS) and a self-report checklist assessing compliance with quarantine orders were used to collect data. SPSS was used to analyze the data and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Of 142 patients who were contacted, 97 participated in the study (68% response rate). The mean age of patients was 39.21 ± 10.27 years and 54 (55.7%) of them were men. Compliance with quarantine orders was correlated with cooperativeness ( r = 0.33; P = 0.001), persistence ( r = 0.23, P = 0.020), self-transcendence ( r = 0.27, P = 0.006) and harm avoidance ( r = -0.26, P = 0.008). Linear regression analysis demonstrated persistence ( P = 0.034), cooperativeness ( P = 0.008) and being married ( P = 0.002) as predictors for following the quarantine orders. Lower levels of cooperativeness, persistence, self-transcendence, and higher levels of harm avoidance are associated with noncompliance with quarantine orders. These traits should be considered while persuasive communication to the public is formulated to recognize the target population and increase compliance with nonmandatory quarantine orders.

Measuring and increasing rates of self-isolation in the context of infectious diseases: A systematic review with narrative synthesis

“…Five studies reported following official guidance in the country where the study was conducted, but did not specify what the guidance was. [21, 36, 37, 39] One study defined self-isolation as following “isolation measures (e.g., avoiding contact with others, hygiene measures, wearing a mask)”. [30] Twelve studies reported “self-isolate” or “quarantine” (or some such variant), but did not define required behaviours.…”

“…[23, 29, 30, 34–43, 45–68, 73, 75–78, 81–83] Of these, 24 were assessed using the ROBINS-E. Analyses of associations from seven studies were at very high risk of bias, [30, 34, 37, 38, 73, 77, 78, 83], 15 were at high risk of bias, [23, 29, 35, 36, 40–43, 47–68, 75, 76, 81, 82] and two had some concerns (Supplement S6). [39, 45] One study was assessed using the ROBINS-I and was rated as very high risk of bias.…”

“…Five analyses found an association between adherence and older age (one at some concerns of bias), [34, 39, 41, 77, 78] three found an association with younger age, [29, 48–61, 83] and 12 found no evidence for an association. [23, 29, 30, 35, 36, 42, 43, 62–68, 73, 81, 82]…”

“…[29, 34, 41, 76–78, 81] Eleven analyses found no evidence for an association. [23, 30, 35, 36, 42, 43, 62–68, 76–78, 82] One analysis (some concerns of bias) found an association between being male and higher adherence. [39] This study investigated people experiencing homelessness or unstable housing and included a low percentage of women (24%).…”

“…Therefore, results are unlikely to be generalisable to the general population. There was weak evidence that lower education was associated with adherence with three analyses finding an association, [29,41] and eight analyses finding no evidence for an association [30,35,36,76,81,82]; one analysis found adherence to be associated with higher education. [37] Table 4.…”