Back

Intention of UK residents to wear facemasks and practise social distancing during the next respiratory virus pandemic

Smith, D. R.; Buckell, J.; Hancock, T. O.; Morrell, L.; Pouwels, K.

2026-05-30 public and global health
10.64898/2026.05.21.26353824 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Wearing facemasks and practising social distancing slow the spread of respiratory pathogens. However, in the event of a new pandemic emerging, the willingness of populations to voluntarily adopt these behaviours is unclear. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted among 2,006 UK-based adults. Participants were presented with hypothetical scenarios describing the emergence of a respiratory virus pandemic and were asked to choose when they would wear facemasks and practise social distancing. A mixed multinomial logit model was used to jointly estimate how disease severity and prevalence, uncertainty in these quantities, and individual-level characteristics influence behavioural choices. Findings: Participants were averse to facemasks and social distancing in the absence of pandemic risk. For each ten-unit increase in severity (10 additional hospitalisations/1,000 infections), the odds of always wearing a facemask outside the home increased by 15.9% (95%CI: 14.3%, 17.5%), relative to rarely/never, and the odds of avoiding all people as much as possible increased by 16.4% (14.6%, 18.2%), relative to not avoiding anyone. Greater disease prevalence, uncertainty in disease severity or disease prevalence, a university education, prior COVID-19 vaccination and non-white ethnicity were also associated with choosing to always wear facemasks and avoid all people as much as possible. The probability of participants choosing to rarely/never wear facemasks varied from 13.4% (11.9%, 14.9%) in the lowest-risk scenario to 1.4% (1.2%, 1.7%) in the highest-risk scenario. Interpretation: Perceived risks of disease and associated uncertainty drive intention of UK adults to adapt their behaviour in a future pandemic.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.4%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.4%
3
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
4
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.8%
5
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
6
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
7
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.6%
9
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
10
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
11
Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
12
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
13
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.9%
15
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
16
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
18
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
20
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
21
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
22
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 66%
1.2%
24
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
25
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
26
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
27
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
28
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
29
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
30
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.8%