Author
Listed:
- Lunn, Peter D.
- Timmons, Shane
- Robertson, Deirdre A.
- Julienne, Hannah
- Lavin, Ciarán
- Barjaková, Martina
- Poluektova, Olga
- Mohr, Kieran
- Andersson, Ylva
- McGowan, Féidhlim P.
- Papadopoulos, Alexandros
Abstract
Humankind's main defence against the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), besides vaccine development, was co-ordinated behaviour change. In many countries, co-ordination was assisted by tracking surveys designed to measure self-reported behaviour and attitudes. This paper describes an alternative, complementary approach, which was undertaken in close collaboration with officials in the Department of the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister). We adapted the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM) to develop the ‘Social Activity Measure’ (SAM). The study was conducted fortnightly for 18 months, with findings delivered directly to the Department. This paper describes the method and shows how SAM generated a detailed picture of where and why transmission risk occurred. By using the DRM, we built aggregate measures from narrative accounts of how individuals spent their previous day. SAM recorded the amount, location and type of social activity, including the incidence of close contact and mask-wearing, as well as compliance with public health restrictions by shops and businesses. The method also permitted a detailed analysis of how public perceptions and comprehension are related to behaviour. The results informed government communications and strategies for lifting public health restrictions. The method could be applied to other future situations that might require co-ordinated public behaviour over an extended period.
Suggested Citation
Lunn, Peter D. & Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre A. & Julienne, Hannah & Lavin, Ciarán & Barjaková, Martina & Poluektova, Olga & Mohr, Kieran & Andersson, Ylva & McGowan, Féidhlim P. & Papadopoulo, 2024.
"Behavioural evidence to inform the COVID-19 pandemic response: Ireland's Social Activity Measure (SAM),"
Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 670-684, October.
Handle:
RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:8:y:2024:i:4:p:670-684_4
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:8:y:2024:i:4:p:670-684_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.