Brexit, COVID-19, and attitudes toward immigration in Britain.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pickup M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8661841 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Illegal immigration is a contentious issue on the American policy agenda. To understand the sources of public attitudes toward immigration, social scientists have focused attention on political factors such as party identification; they have also drawn on theories of intergroup contact to argue that contact with immigrants shapes immigration attitudes. Absent direct measures, contextual measures such as respondents' ethnic milieu or proximity to salient geographic features (such as borders) have been used as proxies of contact. Such a research strategy still leaves the question unanswered - is it contact or context that really matters? Further, which context, and for whom? This article evaluates the effects of party identification, personal contact with undocumented immigrants, and contextual measures (county Hispanic population and proximity to the US-Mexico border) on American attitudes toward illegal immigration. It finds that contextual factors moderate the effects of political party identification on attitudes toward illegal immigration; personal contact has no effect. These findings challenge the assumption that contextual measures act as proxies for interpersonal contact.
| S-EPMC4884820 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A few weeks prior to the EU referendum (23rd June 2016) two broadly representative samples of the electorate were drawn in Kent (the south-east of England, N = 1,001) and Scotland (N = 1,088) for online surveys that measured their trust in politicians, concerns about acceptable levels of immigration, threat from immigration, European identification, and voting intention. We tested an aversion amplification hypothesis that the impact of immigration concerns on threat and identification would be amplified when political trust was low. We hypothesized that the effect of aversion amplification on voting intentions would be mediated first by perceived threat from immigration, and then by (dis) identification with Europe. Results in both samples were consistent with this hypothesis and suggest that voters were most likely to reject the political status quo (choose Brexit) when concerns that immigration levels were too high were combined with a low level of trust in politicians.
| S-EPMC5900979 | biostudies-other
Project description:The impact of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on consumer attitudes toward their skin has not been well characterized.ObjectiveThis study investigated how consumers' attitudes toward their skin changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using REDCap. A total of 1,434 participants were recruited and consented to participate online through ResearchMatch. The survey gathered demographic information and assessed participants' attitudes toward their skin using a Likert scale. An ordered logistic regression analysis was performed.ResultsNearly one-third of participants felt unhappy with their skin. Forty four percent feel less happy about their skin compared with 5 years earlier. The top skin concerns were eye puffiness (86.5%), loose skin (85.1%), uneven tone (84.9%), uneven texture (83.5%), and dry skin (81.4%). Video conferencing (31%), wearing masks (23%), and increased stress (21%) during the COVID-19 pandemic affected how participants felt about their skin. Compared with men, women were 1.6 to 1.8 times (P < .01) more likely to "strongly agree" that all 3 pandemic-related factors-video conferencing, wearing masks, and increased stress-affected how they felt about their skin. Younger age groups were 1.5 to 2.8 times (P < .01) more likely to answer in the top category for all 3 pandemic-related factors compared with the oldest age group.LimitationsRecruitment of participants was limited to English-speaking adults aged 18 years or older who were registered on ResearchMatch, which underrepresents minority populations. Further studies should be conducted to elucidate how the pandemic affected perceptions of skin.ConclusionSkin aging is a significant concern among adults of all ages. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated skin concerns. Women and young adults are more likely to be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in their attitudes toward their skin.
| S-EPMC10348726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The measures adopted by governments around the world to control the spread of the COVID-19 virus (e.g., social distancing) have propelled a rapid transition from face-to-face to online therapy. Studies on online individual therapy indicate that therapists often have favorable attitudes toward this modality. To date, there is scant work on couples therapists' attitudes, despite the fact that the provision of online couples' therapy poses unique challenges (e.g., dealing with escalating conflict remotely). To provide a snapshot, in real time, as to how therapists experience the transition to online therapy, we surveyed 166 Israeli couples' therapists during April 2020, when lockdown orders prevented therapists from seeing couples face-to-face. A few weeks later, when the stay-at-home policy was lifted, a subsample (N = 60) of these therapists completed a follow-up assessment. The results suggest that couples therapists had limited experience using the online modality prior to COVID. The therapists reported experiencing online couples' therapy as somewhat successful and that their experience of providing therapy during the COVID-19 crisis had an overall positive impact on their attitudes toward online work. Establishing a strong therapeutic bond with both partners, dealing with escalating conflict, and treatment dropout were identified as the issues of most concern when conducting online couples therapy. The perceived difficulties with online therapy prospectively predicted lower usage of online couples' therapy, as well as less intention to continue online treatment once the crisis is over.
| S-EPMC8251182 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The general public is subject to triage policies that allocate scarce lifesaving resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the worst public health emergencies in the past 100 years. However, public attitudes toward ethical principles underlying triage policies used during this pandemic are not well understood. Three experiments (preregistered; online samples; N = 1,868; U.S. residents) assessed attitudes toward ethical principles underlying triage policies. The experiments evaluated assessments of utilitarian, egalitarian, prioritizing the worst-off, and social usefulness principles in conditions arising during the COVID-19 pandemic, involving resource scarcity, resource reallocation, and bias in resource allocation toward at-risk groups, such as the elderly or people of color. We found that participants agreed with allocation motivated by utilitarian principles and prioritizing the worst-off during initial distribution of resources and disagreed with allocation motivated by egalitarian and social usefulness principles. At reallocation, participants agreed with giving priority to those patients who received the resources first. Lastly, support for utilitarian allocation varied when saving the greatest number of lives resulted in disadvantage for at-risk or historically marginalized groups. Specifically, participants expressed higher levels of agreement with policies that shifted away from maximizing benefits to one that assigned the same priority to members of different groups if this mitigated disadvantage for people of color. Understanding these attitudes can contribute to developing triage policies, increase trust in health systems, and assist physicians in achieving their goals of patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7641460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND In solid organ transplant (SOT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can contribute to a severe clinical course and an increased risk of death. Thus, patients awaiting a SOT or HSCT face the dilemma of choosing between a life-saving treatment that presents a significant threat of COVID-19 and the risk of waitlist dropout, progression of disease, or mortality. The lack of established literature on COVID-19 complicates the issue as patients, particularly those with inadequate health literacy, may not have the resources needed to navigate these decisions. MATERIAL AND METHODS We conducted a standardized phone survey of patients awaiting SOT or HSCT to assess the prevalence of inadequate health literacy and attitudes toward transplant during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS Seventy-one patients completed the survey, with a response rate of 84.5%. Regardless of health literacy, most waitlisted candidates recognized that the current pandemic is a serious situation affecting their care and that COVID-19 poses a significant risk to their health. Despite the increased risks, most patients reported they would choose immediate transplantation if there was no foreseeable end to the pandemic, and especially if the medical urgency did not permit further delay. There were no differences in responses across the patient waitlist groups for heart, kidney, liver, and stem cell transplant. CONCLUSIONS These findings can help transplant centers decide how transplantation services should proceed during this pandemic and can be used to educate patients and guide discussions about informed consent for transplant during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7735226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:What role should cost-effectiveness play in health care priority setting? We assess the level of acceptance toward different priority setting principles in health care during COVID-19 and in general, thereby exploring public support for principles presented at different levels of abstraction. An online survey was distributed to a diverse sample of the Swedish population (n = 1 553). The results show that respondents were generally more supportive of priority setting principles when expressed in general abstract terms than when expressed in more case specific concrete terms. However, prioritization based on cost-effectiveness was deemed as more acceptable when expressed in concrete terms related to health maximization rather than as an abstract principle. Respondents had a general inclination in support of physicians and other health care professionals the primary responsibility for the allocation of scarce resources in the healthcare during COVID-19, while being less supportive of health economists and politicians being involved in these decisions.
| S-EPMC10012618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Electronic health records (EHRs) have proven their effectiveness during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, successful implementation of EHRs requires assessing nurses' attitudes as they are considered the first line in providing direct care for patients. This study assessed Jordanian nurses' attitudes and examined factors that affect nurses' attitudes toward using EHRs. A cross-sectional, correlational design was used. A convenient sample of 130 nurses was recruited from three major public hospitals in Jordan. All Participants completed the Nurses' attitudes Towards Computerization (NATC) Questionnaire. The overall nurses' attitude was positive; the mean was 61.85 (SD = 10.97). Findings revealed no significant relationship between nurses' attitudes toward using EHRs and nurses' age, gender, education level, previous computer skills experience, years of work experience, and years of dealing with EHRs. However, the work unit was found to have a significant correlation with nurses' attitudes toward using EHRs. Therefore, nurse administrators should arrange for the conduct of educational workshops and continuous training programs considering the needs of the nurses.
| S-EPMC9531357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Healthcare workers (HCWs) are reluctant to participate in the influenza vaccination program, despite their high risk to contract and diffuse influenza due to professional exposure. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic could raise HCW flu vaccination adherence. The aim of this study was to assess HCW attitudes toward influenza vaccination in the COVID-19 era. A multicenter observational study was carried out in three Italian hospitals (two in Pesaro and one in Fano, Marche region, Italy). Data about HCW influenza vaccination between 2013 and 2021 were extracted from the vaccination registers. An online questionnaire was sent to HCWs from July to October 2020 to assess their opinion about influenza vaccination in terms of knowledge, attitude, and practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of flu-vaccinated HCWs increased from 3.7% in the 2013-2014 flu season to 53.6% in the 2020-2021 flu season (p < 0.001). About 15% (n = 324) of HCWs responded to the online questionnaire, and 30.5% of them declared that they had changed their minds on flu vaccination after the COVID-19 pandemic, deciding to get vaccinated. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased HCWs' attitudes toward flu vaccination. However, flu vaccination adherence remained low and should be improved.
| S-EPMC9231023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine acceptance is variable. We surveyed participants in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership from 17 December 2020 to 13 January 2021 to assess vaccine receptiveness. Vaccine uptake was then monitored until 15 May 2021; 20,232 participants responded to the receptiveness survey with vaccination status accessed in 18,874 participants via daily follow-up surveys (participants not completing daily surveys ≥30 days to 15 May 2021, were excluded). In the initial survey, 4802 (23.8%) were vaccine hesitant. Hesitancy was most apparent in women (Adjusted RR 0.93, p < 0.001), Black Americans (Adjusted RR 1.39, 1.41, 1.31 to non-Hispanic Whites, Other, and Hispanic or Latino, respectively p < 0.001), healthcare workers (Adjusted RR 0.93, p < 0.001), suburbanites (ref. Urban Adjusted RR 0.85, 0.90 to urban and rural dwellers, respectively, p < 0.01), and those previously diagnosed with COVID-19 (RR 1.20, p < 0.01). Those <50 years were also less accepting of vaccination. Subsequent vaccine uptake was 99% in non-hesitant participants. For those who were unsure, preferred not to answer, or answered "no", vaccination rates were 80% (Adjusted RR 0.86, p < 0.0001), 78% (Adjusted RR 0.83, p < 0.0001), and 52.7% (Adjusted RR 0.65, p < 0.0001), respectively. These findings suggest that initial intent did not correlate with vaccine uptake in our cohort.
| S-EPMC8402530 | biostudies-literature