Understanding public support for COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures over time: Does it wear out?

Background COVID-19 mitigation measures intend to protect public health, but their adverse psychological, social, and economic effects weaken public support. Less favorable trade-offs may especially weaken support for more restrictive measures. Support for mitigation measures may also differ between population subgroups who experience different benefits and costs, and decrease over time, a phenomenon termed "pandemic fatigue.” Methods We examined self-reported support for COVID-19 mitigation measures in the Netherlands over 12 consecutives waves of data collection between April 2020 and May 2021 in an open population cohort study. Participants were recruited through community panels of the 25 regional public health services, and through links to the online surveys advertised on social media. The 54,010 unique participants in the cohort study on average participated in 4 waves of data collection. Most participants were female (65%), middle-aged [57% (40–69 years)], highly educated (57%), not living alone (84%), residing in an urban area (60%), and born in the Netherlands (95%). Results COVID-19 mitigation measures implemented in the Netherlands remained generally well-supported over time [all scores >3 on 5-point scale ranging 1 (low)−5 (high)]. During the whole period studied, support was highest for personal hygiene measures, quarantine and wearing face masks, high but somewhat lower for not shaking hands, testing and self-isolation, and restricting social contacts, and lowest for limiting visitors at home, and not traveling abroad. Women and higher educated people were more supportive of some mitigation measures than men and lower educated people. Older people were more supportive of more restrictive measures than younger people, and support for more socially restrictive measures decreased most over time in higher educated people or in younger people. Conclusions This study found no support for pandemic fatigue in terms of a gradual decline in support for all mitigation measures in the first year of the pandemic. Rather, findings suggest that support for mitigation measures reflects a balancing of benefits and cost, which may change over time, and differ between measures and population subgroups.

Understanding public support for COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures over time: Does it wear out?

Background: COVID-19 mitigation measures intend to protect public health, but their adverse psychological, social, and economic effects weaken public support. Less favorable trade-offs may especially weaken support for more restrictive measures. Support for mitigation measures may also differ between population subgroups who experience different benefits and costs, and decrease over time, a phenomenon termed "pandemic fatigue." Methods: We examined self-reported support for COVID-19 mitigation measures in the Netherlands over 12 consecutives waves of data collection between April 2020 and May 2021 in an open population cohort study. Participants were recruited through community panels of the 25 regional public health services, and through links to the online surveys advertised on social media. The 54,010 unique participants in the cohort study on average participated in 4 waves of data collection. Most participants were female (65%), middle-aged [57% (40-69 years)], highly educated (57%), not living alone (84%), residing in an urban area (60%), and born in the Netherlands (95%). Results: COVID-19 mitigation measures implemented in the Netherlands remained generally well-supported over time [all scores >3 on 5-point scale ranging 1 (low)-5 (high)]. During the whole period studied, support was highest for personal hygiene measures, quarantine and wearing face masks, high but somewhat lower for not shaking hands, testing and self-isolation, and restricting social contacts, and lowest for limiting visitors at home, and not traveling abroad. Women and higher educated people were more supportive of some mitigation measures than men and lower educated people. Older people were more supportive of more restrictive measures than younger people, and support for more socially restrictive measures decreased most over time in higher educated people or in younger people. Conclusions: This study found no support for pandemic fatigue in terms of a gradual decline in support for all mitigation measures in the first year of the pandemic. Rather, findings suggest that support for mitigation measures reflects a balancing of benefits and cost, which may change over time, and differ between measures and population subgroups.

How do people understand the spread of COVID-19 infections? Mapping mental models of factors contributing to the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the mental models people hold about the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on how they understand the factors that drive the spread of COVID-19 and what kind of beliefs are associated with these models. DESIGN: In a series of three studies (total N = 461), we asked participants to identify factors that are relevant for COVID-19 proliferation (Study 1a), rate the importance of factors (Study 1 b), and create a mental model of how these factors relate to virus spread by employing a validated tool for mental model elicitation (Study 2). Main outcome measures: inclusion and centrality of factors in mental models of COVID-19 infection spread. RESULTS: Mitigation measures issued by government, adherence to measures, and virus characteristics were most strongly represented in participants' mental models. Participants who perceived measures as appropriate or who experienced more control and more worry over the spread of the virus created more complex models compared to participants who were less satisfied with measures or who felt lower control and less worry. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that people are able to create sensible mental models of virus transmission but may appreciate transparent communication to comprehend the bigger picture behind the governmental mitigation strategy.

Understanding COVID-19 vaccination willingness among youth: A survey study in the Netherlands.

Vaccination of youth could be key to preventing future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2. Given the limited direct health benefit for young people, it is important to understand how youth themselves perceive obtaining a vaccination. This survey study in a representative sample of Dutch youth aged 12-18 showed that 73% were willing to get vaccinated against COVID-19. In regression analyses, vaccination willingness was strongly related to age, perceived personal (protect own health) and societal benefits (to get rid of restrictive policies), and their peers' and parents' vaccination uptake. Negative associations with vaccination willingness were perceived side-effects and potential unknown long term consequences. On-going and transparent communication with up-to-date information about safety and risks, delivered by independent and trusted experts (as perceived by the recipients) seems important for addressing questions and concerns. Local information sessions for youth and parents where a vaccination can be obtained without appointment could have merit in addition to mass media communication.

Understanding a national increase in COVID-19 vaccination intention, the Netherlands, November 2020-March 2021.

The intention to get the COVID-19 vaccine increased from 48% (November 2020) to 75% (March 2021) as national campaigning in the Netherlands commenced. Using a mixed method approach we identified six vaccination beliefs and two contextual factors informing this increase. Analysis of a national survey confirmed that shifting intentions were a function of shifting beliefs: people with stronger intention to vaccinate were most motivated by protecting others and reopening society; those reluctant were most concerned about side effects.