Dataset Information

'Us-Versus-Them': Othering in COVID-19 public health behavior compliance.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We explored public perceptions about the COVID-19 pandemic to learn how those attitudes may affect compliance with health behaviors.

Methods

Participants were Central Pennsylvania adults from diverse backgrounds purposively sampled (based on race, gender, educational attainment, and healthcare worker status) who responded to a mixed methods survey, completed between March 25-31, 2020. Four open-ended questions were analyzed, including: "What worries you most about the COVID-19 pandemic?" We applied a pragmatic, inductive coding process to conduct a qualitative, descriptive content analysis of responses.

Results

Of the 5,948 respondents, 538 were sampled for this qualitative analysis. Participants were 58% female, 56% with ≥ bachelor's degree, and 50% from minority racial backgrounds. Qualitative descriptive analysis revealed four themes related to respondents' health and societal concerns: lack of faith in others; fears of illness or death; frustration at perceived slow societal response; and a desire for transparency in communicating local COVID-19 information. An "us-versus-them" subtext emerged; participants attributed non-compliance with COVID-19 behaviors to other groups, setting themselves apart from those Others.

Conclusion

Our study uncovered Othering undertones in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, occurring between groups of like-minded individuals with behavioral differences in 'compliance' versus 'non-compliance' with public health recommendations. Addressing the 'us-versus-them' mentality may be important for boosting compliance with recommended health behaviors.

SUBMITTER: Van Scoy LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8786185 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:RationaleAdolescents and young adults were identified internationally as a group with potentially low compliance rates with public health measures aimed at curbing the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although non-compliance research during pandemics has typically focused on concurrent correlates, less is known about how prior social and psychological risk factors are associated with non-compliance during pandemics.ObjectiveThis paper leverages a prospective-longitudinal cohort study with data before and during the pandemic to describe patterns of non-compliance with COVID- 19 related public health measures in young adults and to identify which characteristics increase the risk of non-compliance.MethodsData came from an ongoing cohort study in Zurich, Switzerland (n=737). Non-compliance with public health measures and concurrent correlates were measured at age 22. Antecedent sociodemographic, social, and psychological factors were measured at ages 15-20. Young adults generally complied with COVID-19 public health measures, although non-compliance with some measures (e.g., cleaning/disinfecting mobile phones, standing 1.5-2 meters apart) was relatively higher.ResultsNon-compliance, especially with hygiene-related measures, was more prevalent in males, and in individuals with higher education, higher SES, and a nonmigrant background. Non-compliance was higher in young adults who had previously scored high on indicators of "antisocial potential," including low acceptance of moral rules, pre-pandemic legal cynicism, low shame/guilt, low self-control, engagement in delinquent behaviors, and association with delinquent peers. Young adults with low trust, including in the government's measures for fighting the virus, also complied less.ConclusionsIn order to increase voluntary compliance with COVID-19 measures, public health campaigns should implement strategies that foster moral obligation and trust in authorities, or leverage trustworthy individuals in the community to disseminate information. For young adults with low self-control, self-monitoring, environmental restructuring, or nudging may increase compliance. Long-term investments into integrating youth with antisocial potential into society may decrease rule-breaking behaviors, including during pandemics when compliance saves lives.

Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to a change in people's volunteering behaviours; participation has increased in informal volunteering (giving unpaid help to those who are not a relative) while decreasing in formal volunteering (unpaid help to groups or clubs). There is an interest from stakeholders who have experienced increased participation in maintaining the positive patterns of volunteering, aligning with National Health Service (NHS) objectives and realising benefits in a wider public health context. This research uses a local COVID-19 public health volunteering programme case study to explore the volunteer's journey and perspective using volunteers' reported experiences to consider the potential for volunteer retention and role expansion into other public health issues beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsRecruitment was undertaken by Birmingham City Council Public Health Team via the COVID-19 Community Champions programme mailing list. Semi-structured focus group discussions, one-to-one interviews and email interviews were conducted with volunteers. Data were analysed through directed thematic analysis using an iteratively developed coding frame.ResultsData were collected from three focus group discussions, four interviews, and one email interview involving a total of 16 participants. Six themes were identified: volunteer motivations and expectations; volunteer management; programme organisation; feeling valued; continued need for role, and interest in new responsibilities.ConclusionOur findings indicate that the factors which are conducive to volunteer recruitment, retention and re-purposing were: maintaining the original terms of engaging with the volunteering opportunity (including retaining the original brief and remit), adjusting these through consultative processes with an emphasis on seeking permission from the volunteers already involved and ensuring a reliable and consistent management and support structure. While some of the learning is specific to the local volunteer programme in question and the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are lessons that can be generalised to other scenarios and settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe private versus public contribution to developing new health knowledge and interventions is deeply contentious. Proponents of commercial innovation highlight its role in late-stage clinical trials, regulatory approval, and widespread distribution. Proponents of public innovation point out the role of public institutions in forming the foundational knowledge undergirding downstream innovation. The rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation has brought with it uniquely proactive public involvement to characterize, treat, and prevent this novel health treat. How has this affected the share of research by industry and public institutions, particularly compared to the experience of previous pandemics, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika?MethodsUsing Embase, we categorized all publications for COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika as having any author identified as affiliated with industry or not. We placed all disease areas on a common timeline of the number of days since the WHO had declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern with a six-month lookback window. We plotted the number and proportion of publications over time using a smoothing function and plotted a rolling 30-day cumulative sum to illustrate the variability in publication outputs over time.ResultsIndustry-affiliated articles represented 2% (1,773 articles) of publications over the 14 months observed for COVID-19, 7% (278 articles) over 7.1 years observed for Ebola, 5% (350 articles) over 12.4 years observed for H1N1, and 3% (160 articles) over the 5.7 years observed for Zika. The proportion of industry-affiliated publications built steadily over the time observed, eventually plateauing around 7.5% for Ebola, 5.5% for H1H1, and 3.5% for Zika. In contrast, COVID-19's proportion oscillated from 1.4% to above 2.7% and then declined again to 1.7%. At this point in the pandemic (i.e., 14 months since the PHEIC), the proportion of industry-affiliated articles had been higher for the other three disease areas; for example, the proportion for H1N1 was twice as high.ConclusionsWhile the industry-affiliated contribution to the biomedical literature for COVID is extraordinary in its absolute number, its proportional share is unprecedentedly low currently. Nevertheless, the world has witnessed one of the most remarkable mobilizations of the biomedical innovation ecosystem in history.