Applying the health belief model to examine college students’ early stage adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions in response to COVID-19

Abstract

Objective

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, colleges worked to minimize transmission through non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). The objective of this study was to apply the Health Belief Model to assess correlates of US college students’ early stage NPI uptake.

Participants

Sample includes 1,223 students from a medium-sized university who participated in an anonymous health survey.

Methods

Logistic regression assessed associations between HBM factors and consistent adoption of five individual NPI strategies. Multivariate linear regression assessed HBM correlates of NPI adoption overall.

Results

Correlates of NPI uptake varied by strategy. Only perceived NPI benefits were significantly associated with NPI adoption individually and overall. Perceived susceptibility was associated with use of hand sanitizer, facemasks, and general NPI adoption. Perceived severity was associated with avoidance of large social gatherings only.

Conclusion

The HBM appears valuable for understanding students’ NPI adoption. Results suggest university health initiatives should prioritize education on the efficacy of particular preventive behaviors.

Keywords:

• College students
• COVID-19
• health belief model
• non-pharmaceutical interventions

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jeri O. Cabot, Alicia Caudill, Duncan Weller, Kennedy Toole, Samantha Petillo, Sammy Stocking, Rachel Posner, Anne Scully, Miranda Dziobak, Julia McReynolds-Pérez, and Shiri Noy for their feedback on and support of this study. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful insights and the anonymous survey participants who made this research possible.

Conflict of interest disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of U.S.A. and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the College of Charleston.

Funding

This work was supported by the College of Charleston, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the College of Charleston, Division of Student Affairs. Funding organizations were not involved in study design, the collection or analysis of data, or the writing of this manuscript.