COVID-19 has become a public health emergency and pandemic of global concern, and the hundreds of millions of foodborne illnesses that occur each year also wreak havoc on human lives, society and the economy. Promoting workers in food service establishments to adhere to the hygiene practices in the WHO guidelines is a two-birds-one-stone strategy in preventing the spread of COVID-19 and limiting the occurrence of foodborne illness. The aim of this study was to determine the drivers that motivate workers to adhere to hygiene practices based on social cognitive theory.
The cross-sectional survey targeting food workers using face-to-face interviews was conducted from July to September 2022. Stratified random sampling and convenience sampling were employed to locate survey sites and respondents, respectively. The survey uses a credible questionnaire evaluated by multiple reliability and validity measures. Binary logistic regression was employed to identify significant determinants of adherence to WHO-initiated hygiene practices.
A total of 900 workers were interviewed and 609 valid questionnaires were received. The study showed that the average correct rate of knowledge about hygiene practices was only 51.09%, that perceived non-adherence to hygiene practices was most likely to result in lower customer satisfaction and the spread of COVID-19, and that only about 11.7% of the workers always adhered to hygiene practices. Three of the cognitive dimensions in the personal factors, self-efficacy, risk perception, and knowledge, had significant positive effects on adherence practices. Among the demographic variables, there were significant differences in adherence practices differing by income level and place of residence.
It was found that workers\' knowledge of the WHO-initiated hygiene practices is insufficient and that the frequency of adherence to hygiene practices is poor and require improvement. The significant drivers and effects of demographic variables provide evidence-based guidance to identify priority intervention information and populations to improve worker hygiene practices.

Risk assessment and response is important for understanding human behavior. The divisive context surrounding the coronavirus pandemic inspires our exploration of risk perceptions and the polarization of mitigation practices (i.e., the degree to which the behaviors of people on the political \"Left\" diverge from those on the \"Right\"). Specifically, we investigate the extent to which the political polarization of willingness to comply with mitigation behaviors changes with risk perceptions.
Analyses use data from two sources: an original dataset of Twitter posts and a nationally-representative survey. In the Twitter data, negative binomial regression models are used to predict mitigation intent measured using tweet counts. In the survey data, logit models predict self-reported mitigation behavior (vaccination, masking, and social distancing).
Findings converged across both datasets, supporting the idea that the links between political orientation and willingness to follow mitigation guidelines depend on perceived risk. People on the Left are more inclined than their Right-oriented colleagues to follow guidelines, but this polarization tends to decrease as the perceived risk of COVID-19 intensifies. Additionally, we find evidence that exposure to COVID-19 infections sends ambiguous signals about the risk of the virus while COVID-19 related deaths have a more consistent impact on mitigation behaviors.
Pandemic-related risks can create opportunities for perceived \"common ground,\" between the political \"Right\" and \"Left.\" Risk perceptions and politics interact in their links to intended COVID-19 mitigation behavior (as measured both on Twitter and in a national survey). Our results invite a more complex interpretation of political polarization than those stemming from simplistic analyses of partisanship and ideology.

Suicide rates have been increasing for decades, and the challenges of a global pandemic seem to have worsened suicide risk factors. The relationship between suicidality, COVID-19 risk perceptions, and guideline adherence was examined to inform potential barriers to the implementation of behavioral interventions aimed at preventing future pandemics.
A national sample of 159 MTurk participants (Mage = 37.64 years, SD = 11.92; 48.4% female) completed an online survey containing the following: demographics, Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale, Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception of COVID-19, and Adherence to COVID-19 Guidelines and Perceived Risk Scale.
Multiple linear regressions assessed how suicidality related to perceived risk subscales and each adherence indicator while controlling for biological sex, age, and essential worker status. Over 25% of participants reported suicidality over the past month, and 19% were at high risk of suicidal behavior. Greater suicidality was associated with lower general COVID-19 risk perceptions (β = -0.326, p < .001), decreased handwashing (β = -0.423, p < .001), lower likelihood of planning to self-quarantine if infected with COVID-19 (β = -0.400, p < .001), less social distancing (β = -0.457, p < .001), and increased attendance of large gatherings (β = 0.405, p < .001).
Temporal relationships were unable to be assessed due to the cross-sectional nature of the data used. The low internal reliability of the risk probability subscale precluded its inclusion in analyses.
Given suicidality\'s associations with decreased risk perceptions and low adherence, it may present as a barrier to the sustained behavior change that will be necessary in preventing the occurrence of future pandemics.

As increasing amounts of data accumulate on the effects of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the risk factors that lead to poor outcomes, it is possible to produce personalized estimates of the risks faced by groups of people with different characteristics. The challenge of how to communicate these then becomes apparent. Based on empirical work (total n = 5520, UK) supported by in-person interviews with the public and physicians, we make recommendations on the presentation of such information. These include: using predominantly percentages when communicating the absolute risk, but also providing, for balance, a format which conveys a contrasting (higher) perception of risk (expected frequency out of 10 000); using a visual linear scale cut at an appropriate point to illustrate the maximum risk, explained through an illustrative \'persona\' who might face that highest level of risk; and providing context to the absolute risk through presenting a range of other \'personas\' illustrating people who would face risks of a wide range of different levels. These \'personas\' should have their major risk factors (age, existing health conditions) described. By contrast, giving people absolute likelihoods of other risks they face in an attempt to add context was considered less helpful. We note that observed effect sizes generally were small. However, even small effects are meaningful and relevant when scaled up to population levels.

In Italy, a large outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) occurred from 2020 January 30, before the World Health Organization has stated that it is a pandemic. The nationwide quarantine had the desired impact of controlling the epidemic, although had presented many challenges, given its large economic and social costs. Complete adherence to recommendations can potentially decelerate and reduce infectious disease outbreaks. To date, it is not clear how compliant the Italian public has been with voluntary home quarantine, neither which factors have influenced an individual\'s decision to comply with a quarantine order. The purposes of this study were to investigate the degree of the adherence to quarantine restrictions and the factors associated with the self-reported adherence. During the third week of the national lockdown, 3,672 Italian quarantined adult residents (65% females; range, 18-85 years) participated in an online cross-sectional survey focused on the risk perception of contracting COVID-19 and their reported adherence to quarantine protocols. Analysis of variance showed significant differences among demographic groups in tendency to comply with quarantine orders, with women, most educated people, residents of Southern Italy, middle-aged individuals, and health workers more likely to adhere to quarantine guidelines. As well, participants exhibiting the perception, anxiety, and susceptibility of risk of contracting COVID-19 disease were found significantly more likely to adhere to quarantine guidelines. The results of this study can help public health policy makers to recognize target populations for COVID-19 prevention and health education and to understand how inform communication strategies aimed at minimizing the impact and spread of the disease.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are typically written for health care professionals but are meant to assist patients with health care decisions. A number of guideline producers have started to develop patient versions of CPGs to reach this audience.
To describe the content and purpose of patient versions of CPGs and compare with patient and public views of CPGs.
A descriptive qualitative study with a directed content analysis of a sample of patient versions of CPGs published and freely available in English from 2012 to 2014.
We included 34 patient versions of CPGs from 17 guideline producers. Over half of the patient versions were in dedicated patient sections of national/professional agency websites. There was essentially no information about how to manage care in the health care system. The most common purpose was to equip people with information about disease, tests or treatments, and recommendations, but few provided quantitative data about benefits and harms of treatments. Information about beliefs, values and preferences, accessibility, costs, or feasibility of the interventions was rarely addressed. Few provided personal stories or scenarios to personalize the information. Three versions described the strength of the recommendation or the level of evidence.
Our search for key institutions that produce patient versions of guidelines was comprehensive, but we only included English and freely available versions. Future work will include other languages.
This review describes the current landscape of patient versions of CPGs and suggests that these versions may not address the needs of their targeted audience. Research is needed about how to personalize information, provide information about factors contributing to the recommendations, and provide access.

BACKGROUND: NICE Guidelines for prevention of diabetes include identifying people at risk followed by cost-effective intervention if necessary. Based on assessment of risk via a questionnaire and/or blood test the intervention may comprise a brief discussion of risk factors and preventive advice or referral to intensive lifestyle intervention.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study 59 subjects recruited from local GP practices were invited by letter to attend a screening for a diabetes prevention study.
METHODS: Following a telephone screening during which subjects were asked whether they had been informed if they were at high-risk of type 2 diabetes, eligible subjects completed a Risk Perception Survey for Developing Diabetes (RPS-DD), a validated diabetes risk score and underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at a medical screening.
RESULTS: As measured by the Diabetes UK Risk Score, 44.1% were at high risk, 42.4% moderate risk and 13.6% at increased risk. 42% of patients had been informed they were at high-risk by a health professional. Those who had been informed of their risk had significantly higher perceived risk scores (p<0.001), higher knowledge scores (p<0.001) and decreased optimism scores (p=0.004), but were not more aware that diet (p=0.42) and weight management (p=0.57) can play a role in preventing diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS: People at high-risk of diabetes are not being informed of their risk status as recommended by NICE guidelines. There is scope for education for health professionals and the public.