Media as A Source of Coping and Social, Psychological and Hedonic Well-being: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns have provided an unprecedented opportunity to better understand the processes by which media are used to improve coping and impaired well-being. Despite the important health issues at stake, the overall dynamic of media-based coping strategies (MBCS), their evolution over time according to their perceived efficacy, and their link with social well-being are poorly understood. The present longitudinal qualitative study, conducted in seven phases of interviews over a period of 36 weeks among a diverse population experiencing lockdown, lifting of lockdown, and then a second lockdown (N = 31;total duration 192 hours), shows how individuals implemented eight families of MBCS on two interdependent levels. On the first level, two families of MBCS developed "micro" and "macro" social processes, contributing to social well-being. Social media satisfied social needs usually satisfied offline. Two other families also improved psychological and hedonic well-being. Among these MBCS, the hedonic strategies in particular were perceived as being ineffective after about a month of confinement. Four families of second-level MBCS were then implemented and were perceived as effective in both the short and long term. Limitations and new perspectives opened by the results are discussed. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Media Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Nurse practitioner practice under the COVID-19 public health emergency: Did policy change persist?

ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) offers opportunities to study legislative and policy changes to nurse practitioner (NP) practice limitations, including factors that affect persistence. We evaluated states with restricted or reduced practice as identified by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. This analysis 1) identified and correlated key changes in policy during the PHE with state regulatory, governmental, and practice variables; 2) modeled predictive characteristics that facilitate or impede policy persistence; and 3) explored the lived experience of NPs working in eligible states with policy changes during the PHE. Focus group interviews with NP leaders and bivariate correlations with regression analysis from the 2019 to 2021 legislative sessions were conducted. Nurse practitioner identified three types of persistence during the PHE: the power differential between MDs and NPs; the existing day-to-day environment; and barriers to change. In 2019, significantly more legislation was passed in states with sunset laws (Spearman rho: -0.38; p -value = .046). During 2020, 15 states introduced a total of 22 bills focused on NP practice, although only four passed one bill each. In 2021, states with an independent board structure introduced more NP legislation than did those states with a nonindependent board structure (Spearman rho: -0.406; p -value = .032). Few PHE policies persisted, despite robust predictions that this was likely to occur. Independent board structure and sunset laws were associated with legislation introduction and passage. Policy persistence is complex and based on multiple state and environmental variables. We urge persistence in NP advocacy strategies.