Different Behavior-Change Messaging Techniques Do Not Increase Customers' Hand Sanitization Adherence During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Natural Behavioral Study

Lauren A Booker; Emma L Cordon; Hanne Sæderup Pedersen; Christina Fogtmann Fosgerau; Simon Egerton; Carina K Y Chan; Timothy C Skinner

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.876131

Different Behavior-Change Messaging Techniques Do Not Increase Customers' Hand Sanitization Adherence During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Natural Behavioral Study

Front Psychol. 2022 Jun 9:13:876131. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.876131. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Lauren A Booker¹, Emma L Cordon¹, Hanne Sæderup Pedersen², Christina Fogtmann Fosgerau², Simon Egerton³, Carina K Y Chan⁴, Timothy C Skinner^{1

5}

Affiliations

¹ La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
² Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
³ Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
⁴ School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
⁵ Department of Psychology, Centre for Health, and Society, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Abstract

Introduction: Hand hygiene is an integral public health strategy in reducing the transmission of COVID-19, yet the past research has shown hand hygiene practices among the public is sub-optimal. This study aimed to (1) quantify hand sanitization rates among the public to minimize the transmission of COVID-19 and (2) evaluate whether different public health messaging, based on various behavior-change theories influences hand hygiene behavior in a natural setting.

Methods: An observational, naturalistic study design was used with real-time customer activity data recorded against hand sanitizer usage in a regional hardware store. Primary outcome from the study was to measure the usage ratio by counting the amount of activity versus usage of hand sanitizer per hour against individual messages based on their behavioral change technique (BCT).

Results: There was no significant difference between the baseline message and any of the intervention messages [F(16,904) = 1.19, p = 0.279] or between BCT groups [F(3,906) = 1.33, p = 0.263]. Post hoc tests showed no significant difference between messages (social comparison, p = 0.395; information, p = 1.00; and action planning, p = 1.00).

Conclusion: This study showed that even during a pandemic, hand hygiene usage rates in a public setting were similar to the past studies and that compliance did not shift dependent on the public message displayed. This raises questions on whether requirements imposed on businesses to provide hand sanitizer to patrons are an ineffective and maybe an unnecessary economic burden. A measured approach to risk and behavioral analysis surrounding the use of hand sanitizer in a pandemic is suggested as a better approach to inform public policy on the value of hand sanitizer.

Keywords: Australia; COVID; coronavirus; hand sanitization; infection preventive behavior; pandemic; public health.