Dataset Information

A Psychological Network Approach to Attitudes and Preventive Behaviors During Pandemics: A COVID-19 Study in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands

ABSTRACT: Preventive behaviors are crucial to prevent the spread of the coronavirus causing COVID-19. We adopted a complex psychological systems approach to obtain a descriptive account of the network of attitudes and behaviors related to COVID-19. A survey study (N = 1,022) was conducted with subsamples from the United Kingdom (n = 502) and the Netherlands (n = 520). The results highlight the importance of people’s support for, and perceived efficacy of, the measures and preventive behaviors. This also applies to the perceived norm of family and friends adopting these behaviors. The networks in both countries were largely similar but also showed notable differences. The interplay of psychological factors in the networks is also highlighted, resulting in our appeal to policy makers to take complexity and mutual dependence of psychological factors into account. Future research should study the effects of interventions aimed at these factors, including effects on the network, to make causal inferences.

SUBMITTER: Chambon M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8042407 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGiven the public health responses to previous respiratory disease pandemics, and in the absence of treatments and vaccines, the mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic relies on population engagement in nonpharmaceutical interventions. This engagement is largely driven by risk perception, anxiety levels, and knowledge, as well as by historical exposure to disease outbreaks, government responses, and cultural factors.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare psychobehavioral responses in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsComparable cross-sectional surveys were administered to adults in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom during the early phase of the epidemic in each setting. Explanatory variables included demographics, risk perception, knowledge of COVID-19, anxiety level, and preventive behaviors. Responses were weighted according to census data. Logistic regression models, including effect modification to quantify setting differences, were used to assess the association between the explanatory variables and the adoption of social distancing measures.ResultsData from 3431 complete responses (Hong Kong, 1663; United Kingdom, 1768) were analyzed. Perceived severity of symptoms differed by setting, with weighted percentages of 96.8% for Hong Kong (1621/1663) and 19.9% for the United Kingdom (366/1768). A large proportion of respondents were abnormally or borderline anxious (Hong Kong: 1077/1603, 60.0%; United Kingdom: 812/1768, 46.5%) and regarded direct contact with infected individuals as the transmission route of COVID-19 (Hong Kong: 94.0%-98.5%; United Kingdom: 69.2%-93.5%; all percentages weighted), with Hong Kong identifying additional routes. Hong Kong reported high levels of adoption of various social distancing measures (Hong Kong: 32.6%-93.7%; United Kingdom: 17.6%-59.0%) and mask-wearing (Hong Kong: 98.8% (1647/1663); United Kingdom: 3.1% (53/1768)). The impact of perceived severity of symptoms and perceived ease of transmission of COVID-19 on the adoption of social distancing measures varied by setting. In Hong Kong, these factors had no impact, whereas in the United Kingdom, those who perceived their symptom severity as "high" were more likely to adopt social distancing (adjusted odds ratios [aORs] 1.58-3.01), and those who perceived transmission as "easy" were prone to adopt both general social distancing (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.57-2.55) and contact avoidance (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.41-2.30). The impact of anxiety on adopting social distancing did not vary by setting.ConclusionsOur results suggest that health officials should ascertain baseline levels of risk perception and knowledge in populations, as well as prior sensitization to infectious disease outbreaks, during the development of mitigation strategies. Risk should be communicated through suitable media channels-and trust should be maintained-while early intervention remains the cornerstone of effective outbreak response.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the volume and quality of original research in primary care published by researchers from primary care in the United Kingdom against five countries with well established academic primary care.DesignBibliometric analysis.SettingUnited Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Studies reviewed Research publications relevant to comprehensive primary care and authored by researchers from primary care, recorded in Medline and Embase, with publication dates 2001-7 inclusive.Main outcome measuresVolume of published activity of generalist primary care researchers and the quality of the research output by those publishing the most using citation metrics: numbers of cited papers, proportion of cited papers, and mean citation scores.Results82,169 papers published between 2001 and 2007 in the six countries were classified as research on primary care. In a 15% pragmatic random sample of these records, 40% of research on primary care from the United Kingdom and 46% from the Netherlands was authored by researchers employed in a primary care setting or employed in academic departments of primary care. The 141 researchers with the highest volume of publications reporting research findings published between 2001 and 2007 (inclusive) authored or part authored 8.3% of the total sample of papers. For authors with the highest proportion of publications cited at least five times, the best performers came from the United States (n=5), United Kingdom (n=4), and the Netherlands (n=2). In the top 10 of authors with the highest proportions of publications achieving 20 or more citations, six were from the United Kingdom and four from the United States. The mean Hirsch index (measure of a researcher's productivity and impact of the published work) was 14 for the Netherlands, 13 for the United Kingdom, 12 for the United States, 7 for Canada, 4 for Australia, and 3 for Germany.ConclusionThis international comparison of the volume and citation rates of papers by researchers from primary care consistently placed UK researchers among the best performers internationally.

Dataset Information

A Psychological Network Approach to Attitudes and Preventive Behaviors During Pandemics: A COVID-19 Study in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets