Individual costs and societal benefits of interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Individual and societal reactions to an ongoing pandemic can lead to social dilemmas: In some cases, each individual is tempted to not follow an intervention, but for the whole society, it would be best if they did. Now that in most countries, the extent of regulations to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission is very small, interventions are driven by individual decision-making. Assuming that individuals act in their best own interest, we propose a framework in which this situation can be quantified, depending on the protection the intervention provides to a user and to others, the risk of getting infected, and the costs of the intervention. We discuss when a tension between individual and societal benefits arises and which parameter comparisons are important to distinguish between different regimes of intervention use.

COVID-19 pandemic policing and public (non)compliant behaviour: dataset from Nigeria.

OBJECTIVES: The unprecedented nature of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown order projected to contain the pandemic and the global use of the police to enforce the order has necessitated the investigation of public (non-compliant) behavior and police intervention (misconduct). Given that the phases of easing the lockdown and reopening of the economy were already underway in Nigeria in September 2020, four months post-lockdown, this period was deemed suitable to collect the data. DATA DESCRIPTION: The data consists of 30 participants' (25 individuals and five police personnel) views regarding the reasons that exacerbated the violation and the 'alleged' unethical practices of police personnel while enforcing the lockdown. However, it benefits the broader scientific community in areas such as policing, disaster risk reduction, pandemic management and public administration. It is valuable in police reforms against unethical practices and gives clear policy directions to policymakers and authorities in managing future public health emergencies. Also, it is useful in understanding the public awareness about the pandemic and public (mis)trust and disposition towards the government authorities on the obedience to law and public health safety advisories to contain a pandemic.

Piloting an interprofessional virtual cadaveric dissection course: Responding to COVID-19.

Interprofessional learning improves students' clinical and interprofessional competencies. COVID-19 prevented delivering in-person education and motivated the development of a virtual interprofessional cadaveric dissection (ICD) course. This study reports on the effects of a virtual ICD course compared to a previously delivered in-person course, on students' readiness for, and perceptions about, interprofessional learning. Students attending the ICD course in-person (2019-2020) or virtually (2020-2021) completed the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) and the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS). Students in the virtual course also provided written feedback. Thirty-two (24 women; Median: 24 [Q1-Q3: 22-25] years) and 23 students (18 women; 22 [21-23] years) attended the in-person and virtual courses, respectively. In the virtual cohort, the RIPLS total score (82 [76-87] vs. 85 [78-90]; p = 0.034) and the roles and responsibilities sub-score (11 [9-12] vs. 12 [11-13]; p = 0.001) improved significantly. In the in-person cohort, the roles and responsibilities sub-score improved significantly (12 [10-14] vs. 13 [11-14]; p = 0.017). No significant differences were observed between cohorts (p < 0.05). Themes identified in the qualitative analysis were advantages and positive experiences, competencies acquired, disadvantages and challenges, and preferences and suggestions. In-person and virtual ICD courses seem to have similar effects on students' interprofessional learning. However, students reported preferring the in-person setting for learning anatomy-dissection skills.

The Impact of Cooperative Behavior between Social Organizations during the COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak in Shanghai: A Simulation Approach.

In 2022, a new outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic created considerable challenges for the Shanghai public health system. However, conventional prevention and control strategies, which only rely on formal organizations, inefficiently decrease the number of infections. Thus, a multi-organization management mode is needed for pandemic prevention. In this paper, we applied a stochastic actor-oriented model (SAOM) to analyze how these social organizations cooperate with others and further identify the mechanism that drives them to create a reliable and sustainable cooperative relationship network from the perspective of social network analysis. The model allowed us to assess the effects of the actor's attributes, the network structure, and dynamic cooperative behavior in RSiena with longitudinal data collected from 220 participants in 19 social organizations. The results indicated that the number of cooperative relationships increased during the pandemic, from 44 to 162, which means the network between social organizations became more reliable. Furthermore, all the hypotheses set in four sub-models were significant (t-ratio < 0.1, overall max t-ratio < 0.25, and e/s > 2). Additionally, the estimated values showed that four factors played a positive role in forming the cooperative relationship network, i.e., all except the "same age group effect (−1.02)". The results also indicated that the social organizations tend to build relationships with more active actors in the community in every time period. This paper is of great significance regarding the innovation of public health system management and the improvement of Chinese grassroots governance.

Discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated people during the pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, sizeable groups of unvaccinated people persist even in countries with high vaccine access1. As a consequence, vaccination became a controversial subject of debate and even protest2. Here we assess whether people express discriminatory attitudes in the form of negative affectivity, stereotypes and exclusionary attitudes in family and political settings across groups defined by COVID-19 vaccination status. We quantify discriminatory attitudes between vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens in 21 countries, covering a diverse set of cultures across the world. Across three conjoined experimental studies (n = 15,233), we demonstrate that vaccinated people express discriminatory attitudes towards unvaccinated individuals at a level as high as discriminatory attitudes that are commonly aimed at immigrant and minority populations3-5. By contrast, there is an absence of evidence that unvaccinated individuals display discriminatory attitudes towards vaccinated people, except for the presence of negative affectivity in Germany and the USA. We find evidence in support of discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated individuals in all countries except for Hungary and Romania, and find that discriminatory attitudes are more strongly expressed in cultures with stronger cooperative norms. Previous research on the psychology of cooperation has shown that individuals react negatively against perceived 'free-riders'6,7, including in the domain of vaccinations8,9. Consistent with this, we find that contributors to the public good of epidemic control (that is, vaccinated individuals) react with discriminatory attitudes towards perceived free-riders (that is, unvaccinated individuals). National leaders and vaccinated members of the public appealed to moral obligations to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake10,11, but our findings suggest that discriminatory attitudes-including support for the removal of fundamental rights-simultaneously emerged.

Re-evaluation of the interprofessional collaboration scale validation between nurses towards other health care professionals occupied in Italian emergency medical services.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) between health professionals is fundamental for the provision of an efficient and effective medical care service. This is especially so in states of emergency, as highlighted by the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This study aimed to obtain further evidence regarding the validity and reliability of the Italian language IPC scale -an instrument for measuring interprofessional collaboration- in a setting that has yet to be investigated at an in-depth level: the emergency departments in Italian hospitals. METHODS: The survey tool was a structured questionnaire in the Italian language. It comprised the validated Italian version of the IPC scale plus a question concerning the frequency of collaborations between the nurses interviewed and other health professionals. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to rate the three factors ("communication", "accommodation" and "isolation") that compose the scale. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-six nurses working in an emergency department for at least one year completed the questionnaire, which assessed collaboration with other health professionals working in the same department. The model fit statistics are satisfactory for all the nurse-target group combinations analysed. Regarding the Cronbach's alpha statistic used to compute the reliability of the scale, acceptable values were obtained for all items, except for those related to the isolation factor for each case of interprofessional collaboration considered. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the validity of the IPC scale as an instrument for the assessment of interprofessional collaboration involving nurses and other workers occupied in the provision of healthcare in Italian emergency departments.

The societal responses to COVID-19: Evidence from the G7 countries.

This paper provides a picture of how societies in the G7 countries have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our point of departure is to examine the effects of the pandemic in terms of four fundamental normative sources for well-being: Solidarity (S; willingness for social cooperation), Agency (A; empowerment to shape one's prospects through one's own efforts), GDP (G), and Environmental Performance (E)-SAGE for short. The normative foundations of SAGE are communitarianism, classical liberalism, materialistic utilitarianism, and ecoethics. We find that although G and E responded predictably and uniformly to the pandemic (such as G declining and carbon emissions improving), the societal responses were strikingly different. Societies that are cohesive and empowered (high S and A) may be expected to cope with the pandemic better than those that are fragmented and disempowered (low S and A). Furthermore, the pandemic has had diverse effects on S and A; while some societies became cohering and empowering (rising S and A), others became fragmenting and disempowering (falling S and A), and yet others became fragmenting and empowering. We also show that most G7 countries experienced greater tribalization (measured as the difference between inward S and outward S) during the pandemic. These trends are a matter of concern since they suggest that the willingness and perceived ability to address collective challenges collectively have waned. The analysis also suggests that governments' social policies may have an important role to play alongside economic and health policies in coping with the pandemic.