Volume 73, No.2: 2021 Siriraj Medical Journal
https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/sirirajmedj/index
71
Original Article
SMJ
Dependent variable: physical distancing
Physical distancing is dened as at least 1-meter
distance among people.
5
Successful physical distancing
was dened according to the following criteria:
(1) Standing within the 40-centemeter-length marking
position along the process of queueing.
(2) Moving out of the marked position 3 seconds
and less each time is acceptable.
Other conditions which do not meet these criteria
above are dened as a failure to keep physical distancing.
Factors aecting physical distancing
is study is a comparative behavioral observation
study via CCTV. We established the protocol for CCTV
data collection. Aer piloting the protocol for CCTV
record, observers revised the established protocol to
validate inconclusive situations. e revised protocol
was applied in the data collection. We observed the
characteristics of participants including age group (by
observation), gender, university uniform, companion,
and carrying item. e accessibility of the records is
limited to our research team only at the study location
and the records will not be published. ese do not
contain personal identication and will be deleted within
7 days according to the organization’s security policy.
All analyses were carried out on anonymized data and
will be analyzed in aggregates. Moreover, the publication
will not mention the dates and specic places. erefore,
we guarantee the condentiality and the privacy of the
participants and communities.
Statistical analysis
e statistical analysis included both continuous
and categorized variables for physical distancing. e
median and interquartile range (IQR) were used to
describe the physical distancing as the data were not
normally distributed. e Wilcoxon signed-rank test
was used to compare the physical distancing regarding
dierent interventions within the same cluster. Categorical
variables were analyzed using a Chi-square or Fisher’s
exact test. e analysis was computed by R® 4.0.0.
e study was conducted in line with the Belmont
Report and was approved by the Human Research Ethics
Committee (HREC), Faculty of Medicine, Prince of
Songkla University (REC.63-272-9-1).
RESULTS
There was a total of 400 participants observed
over 4 interventions including the conventional one,
an attractive picture, a ashing red-light, and a speech
alarm sound. One quarter of the participants engaged in
each intervention. e participant demographic data was
recorded in Table 1 as gender, age group (by observation),
uniform wearing, coming with companion, and carrying
items categorized in number and types. Considering
characteristics, gender was solely not statistically dierent
in an attractive picture (p = 1.00), a ashing red-light
(p = 0.764), and a speech alarm sound (p = 0.114).
Comparing each intervention with the control
group, there was no signicant eect of all interventions
on physical distancing compliance (Table 2). e highest
average number of failures of physical distancing was
an attractive picture (3 times). e number of failures
of physical distancing of the other three interventions
was 2 on average.
According to Table 3 and Fig 2, the failure of physical
distancing at the rst two marking points in all interventions
were approximately 80% while the rest were apparently
lower. In the attractive picture intervention, the failure of
physical distancing went in an upward trend at marking
point 3, 4 and 5. e ashing red-light intervention
could signicantly decrease 25.4% failure of physical
distancing comparing to the control group at marking
point 3 (p = 0.011). At the latter marking points, the
failure of physical distancing in the speech alarm sound
intervention continuously attenuated, demonstrating a
similar trend to the control group. At the marking point
5, the failure of physical distancing declined. e decline
was statistically signicant (p = 0.044).
DISCUSSION
Our results demonstrated that failure of physical
distancing compliance in all interventions declined
compared to the control group. However, ndings did
not have enough strength to support the eectiveness
of interventions on delivering the encouragement of
behavioral change. Considering each marking point in
all interventions, the rst two positions bore noticeably
high percentage of failure of physical distancing due
to the distraction from menu selection. In position 3,
4 and 5 of the attractive picture intervention, there
was an increasing failure of physical distancing (Fig
3). A message from an attractive picture might not
eciently be delivered to the participants. Failure of
physical distancing at marking point 3 of the ashing
red-light intervention decreased signicantly since the
intervention could establish an eect to draw attention.
10–12
e speech alarm sound intervention could improve
behavior of participants in maintaining physical distance,
especially at the latter marking points. Despite the fact
that physical distancing, one of non-pharmaceutical
interventions, is key to preventing spread of respiratory