Spontaneous social distancing in response to a simulated epidemic: a virtual experiment.

BACKGROUND: Studies of social distancing during epidemics have found that the strength of the response can have a decisive impact on the outcome. In previous work we developed a model of social distancing driven by individuals' risk attitude, a parameter which determines the extent to which social contacts are reduced in response to a given infection level. We showed by simulation that a strong response, driven by a highly cautious risk attitude, can quickly suppress an epidemic. However, a moderately cautious risk attitude gives weak control and, by prolonging the epidemic without reducing its impact, may yield a worse outcome than doing nothing. In real societies, social distancing may arise spontaneously from individual choices rather than being imposed centrally. There is little data available about this as opportunistic data collection during epidemics is difficult. Our study uses a simulated epidemic in a computer game setting to measure the social distancing response. METHODS: Two hundred thirty participants played a computer game simulating an epidemic on a spatial network. The player controls one individual in a population of 2500 (with others controlled by computer) and decides how many others to contact each day. To mimic real-world trade-offs, the player is motivated to make contact by being rewarded with points, while simultaneously being deterred by the threat of infection. Participants completed a questionnaire regarding psychological measures of health protection motivation. Finally, simulations were used to compare the experimentally-observed response to epidemics with no response. RESULTS: Participants reduced contacts in response to infection in a manner consistent with our model of social distancing. The experimentally observed response was too weak to halt epidemics quickly, resulting in a somewhat reduced attack rate and a substantially reduced peak attack rate, but longer duration and fewer social contacts, compared to no response. Little correlation was observed between participants' risk attitudes and the psychological measures. CONCLUSIONS: Our cognitive model of social distancing matches responses to a simulated epidemic. If these responses indicate real world behaviour, spontaneous social distancing can be expected to reduce peak attack rates. However, additional measures are needed if it is important to stop an epidemic quickly.

Protection motivation theory and social distancing behaviour in response to a simulated infectious disease epidemic.

Epidemics of respiratory infectious disease remain one of the most serious health risks facing the population. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. hand-washing or wearing face masks) can have a significant impact on the course of an infectious disease epidemic. The current study investigated whether protection motivation theory (PMT) is a useful framework for understanding social distancing behaviour (i.e. the tendency to reduce social contacts) in response to a simulated infectious disease epidemic. There were 230 participants (109 males, 121 females, mean age 32.4 years) from the general population who completed self-report measures assessing the components of PMT. In addition, participants completed a computer game which simulated an infectious disease epidemic in order to provide a measure of social distancing behaviour. The regression analyses revealed that none of the PMT variables were significant predictors of social distancing behaviour during the simulation task. However, fear (ß = .218, p < .001), response efficacy (ß = .175, p < .01) and self-efficacy (ß = .251, p < .001) were all significant predictors of intention to engage in social distancing behaviour. Overall, the PMT variables (and demographic factors) explain 21.2% of the variance in intention. The findings demonstrated that PMT was a useful framework for understanding intention to engage in social distancing behaviour, but not actual behaviour during the simulated epidemic. These findings may reflect an intention-behaviour gap in relation to social distancing behaviour.

Controlling epidemic spread by social distancing: do it well or not at all.

BACKGROUND: Existing epidemiological models have largely tended to neglect the impact of individual behaviour on the dynamics of diseases. However, awareness of the presence of illness can cause people to change their behaviour by, for example, staying at home and avoiding social contacts. Such changes can be used to control epidemics but they exact an economic cost. Our aim is to study the costs and benefits of using individual-based social distancing undertaken by healthy individuals as a form of control. METHODS: Our model is a standard SIR model superimposed on a spatial network, without and with addition of small-world interactions. Disease spread is controlled by allowing susceptible individuals to temporarily reduce their social contacts in response to the presence of infection within their local neighbourhood. We ascribe an economic cost to the loss of social contacts, and weigh this against the economic benefit gained by reducing the impact of the epidemic. We study the sensitivity of the results to two key parameters, the individuals' attitude to risk and the size of the awareness neighbourhood. RESULTS: Depending on the characteristics of the epidemic and on the relative economic importance of making contacts versus avoiding infection, the optimal control is one of two extremes: either to adopt a highly cautious control, thereby suppressing the epidemic quickly by drastically reducing contacts as soon as disease is detected; or else to forego control and allow the epidemic to run its course. The worst outcome arises when control is attempted, but not cautiously enough to cause the epidemic to be suppressed. The next main result comes from comparing the size of the neighbourhood of which individuals are aware to that of the neighbourhood within which transmission can occur. The control works best when these sizes match and is particularly ineffective when the awareness neighbourhood is smaller than the infection neighbourhood. The results are robust with respect to inclusion of long-range, small-world links which destroy the spatial structure, regardless of whether individuals can or cannot control them. However, addition of many non-local links eventually makes control ineffective. CONCLUSIONS: These results have implications for the design of control strategies using social distancing: a control that is too weak or based upon inaccurate knowledge, may give a worse outcome than doing nothing.