Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancements in Multiplex Detection of Respiratory Viruses
Published on: November 10, 2023
Measuring and increasing rates of self-isolation in the context of COVID-19: a systematic review with narrative
L E Smith1, A F Martin2, S K Brooks2
1King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, United Kingdom; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, United Kingdom; UK Health Security Agency, Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, United Kingdom.
Objectives:
This study aimed to investigate (1) definitions of self-isolation used during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) measures used to quantify adherence and their reliability, validity, and acceptability; (3) rates of self-isolation adherence; and (4) factors associated with adherence.
Study Design:
This was a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO record CRD42022377820).
Methods:
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.
Results:
We included 45 studies. Self-isolation was inconsistently defined. Four studies did not use self-report measures. Of 41 studies using self-report, one reported reliability; another gave indirect evidence for the lack of validity of the measure. Rates of adherence to self-isolation for studies with only some concerns of bias were 51%-86% for COVID-19 cases, 78%-94% for contacts, and 16% for people with COVID-19-like symptoms. There was little evidence that self-isolation adherence was associated with sociodemographic or psychological factors.
Conclusions:
There was no consensus in defining, operationalising, or measuring self-isolation, resulting in significant risk of bias in included studies. Future definitions of self-isolation should state behaviours to be enacted and duration. People recommended to self-isolate should be given support. Public health campaigns should aim to increase perceived effectiveness of self-isolation and promote accurate information about susceptibility to infection.
Related Concept Videos
01:22Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
01:25Transmission-based Precautions II: Airborne and Protective Environment
Airborne precautions:
Use airborne precautions when treating patients known or suspected to have diseases that spread through the air—for example, tuberculosis or measles. These organisms are present in smaller droplets expelled by an infected person and...
01:17Transmission-based Precautions I: Contact, Enteric, and Droplets
Contact Precautions:
Contact precautions are the measures taken to prevent the transmission of infectious agents, especially epidemiologically important microorganisms such as MRSA or influenza, primarily transmitted through direct or indirect contact with an...