Rebranding social distancing to physical distancing: calling for a change in the health promotion vocabulary to enhance clear communication during a pandemic.

Kristine Sørensen,Diane Levin-Zamir,Orkan Okan,Barbara Kondilis

doi:10.1177/1757975920986126

Abstract

Amidst the COVID-19 outbreak, the term ‘social distancing’ received immense attention in the mainstream and social media and was embraced by governments as a universal precaution to stem the coronavirus pandemic. ‘Social distancing’ belongs technically to a set of non-pharmaceutical infection control actions intended to stop or slow down the spread of a contagious disease. However, several weeks into the outbreak, scholars discussed whether the term was, in fact, misleading and could be counterproductive. To study the arguments, the study design included (1) analysis of the performance of the concepts ‘social distancing’ and ‘physical distancing’ based on Google Trends (15 February–15 June 2020); (2) analysis of the arguments used in media discussions of ‘social distancing versus physical distancing’ in the period 15 March–15 April 2020, derived from a Google search; and (3) a scientific literature review in PubMed. The study was conducted in English. The trend analysis showed the peak and the decrease of the relative popularity of ‘social distancing’ and ‘physical distancing’ during spring 2020. The thematic analysis of Google sources yielded an overview of arguments based on nine themes with two to five sub-themes reflecting on the misleading concept, the historical perspective, the sociological perspective, the public health perspective, alternative proposals regarding the social and the physical dimensions, the distinction of terms, the political choice, and the need for rebranding. Two papers were included in the scientific literature review, which both stressed the need for a change of terminology. In conclusion, the study emphasizes that the choice of terminology matters when life-saving public health messages are designed. It is therefore recommended to rebrand ‘social distancing’ to ‘physical distancing’ to enhance clear communication during the current COVID-19 pandemic in order to prepare for future pandemics.

Highlights

Amidst the COVID-19 outbreak, the term ‘social distancing’ received tremendous attention in the mainstream and social media and was embraced by governments as a universal precaution to stem the coronavirus pandemic
The aim of this study was, to assess the arguments associated with the use of the terms ‘social distancing’ and ‘physical distancing’ and apply a health literacy lens to the discussion of the outcomes to guide their use in the realm of public health and health promotion during the current COVID-19 pandemic and in the future
An inductive thematic analysis of sources resulted in nine themes with 2–5 sub-themes describing the arguments put forward by the stakeholders discussing the use of ‘social distancing’ versus ‘physical distancing’

Summary

Introduction

Amidst the COVID-19 outbreak, the term ‘social distancing’ received tremendous attention in the mainstream and social media and was embraced by governments as a universal precaution to stem the coronavirus pandemic. As the COVID-19 outbreak evolved, the act of ‘social distancing’ was deployed as a protective means in countries across the world with varying degrees of intensity, yet often with high costs to individuals and societies [1,2]. In 1963 Edward Hall, a cultural anthropologist, coined the term proxemics to define studies about ‘social distancing’ in everyday life. His concern was that closer distances between two persons may increase visual, tactile, auditory, or olfactory stimulation to the point that some people may feel intruded upon and react negatively, and he proposed four main zones of space between individuals:

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion