Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 113
Filter
2.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 517, 2022 01 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1655570

ABSTRACT

Changing collective behaviour and supporting non-pharmaceutical interventions is an important component in mitigating virus transmission during a pandemic. In a large international collaboration (Study 1, N = 49,968 across 67 countries), we investigated self-reported factors associated with public health behaviours (e.g., spatial distancing and stricter hygiene) and endorsed public policy interventions (e.g., closing bars and restaurants) during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-May 2020). Respondents who reported identifying more strongly with their nation consistently reported greater engagement in public health behaviours and support for public health policies. Results were similar for representative and non-representative national samples. Study 2 (N = 42 countries) conceptually replicated the central finding using aggregate indices of national identity (obtained using the World Values Survey) and a measure of actual behaviour change during the pandemic (obtained from Google mobility reports). Higher levels of national identification prior to the pandemic predicted lower mobility during the early stage of the pandemic (r = -0.40). We discuss the potential implications of links between national identity, leadership, and public health for managing COVID-19 and future pandemics.


Subject(s)
Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Social Conformity , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Cross-Cultural Comparison , Health Behavior , Humans , Leadership , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report , Social Identification
3.
Eur J Psychotraumatol ; 13(1): 2013651, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1650963

ABSTRACT

Background: Does exposure to events that transgress accepted norms, such as killing innocent civilians, prompt the psychological and emotional consequences of moral injury among soldiers? Moral injury is associated with negative emotions such as guilt, shame and anger, and a sense of betrayal and is identified among veterans following exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIE). Objective: We experimentally investigate how PMIE characteristics affect the intensity of MI and related negative moral emotions in participants with varied military experience. Method: We conducted three controlled, randomized experiments. Each exposed male respondents with active combat experience (Study 1) and varied military experience (Study 2) to four textual vignettes describing PMIE (child/adult and innocent/non-innocent suspect) that transpire at an Israeli checkpoint in the West Bank. In study 3, we exposed participants to two scenarios, where descriptions of police officers enforcing COVID 19 restrictions confronted lockdown violators. Results: Participants assigned to vignettes describing killing an innocent civilian exhibited more intense levels of shame and guilt than those assigned to vignettes describing killing a person carrying a bomb. Religiosity and political ideology were strong predictors of guilt and shame in response to descriptions of checkpoint shootings. These effects disappeared in Study 3, suggesting that political ideology drives MI in intergroup conflict. Conclusions: Background and PMIE-related characteristics affect the development of moral injury. Additionally, lab experiments demonstrate the potential and limitations of controlled studies of moral injury and facilitate an understanding of the aetiology of moral injury in a way unavailable to clinicians. Finally, experimental findings and methodologies offer further insights into the genesis of moral injury and avenues for therapy and prophylaxis.


Antecedentes: ¿La exposición a eventos que transgreden las normas aceptadas, como matar a civiles inocentes, provocan las consecuencias psicológicas y emocionales del daño moral entre los soldados? El daño moral (DM) se asocia con emociones negativas como la culpa, la vergüenza y la ira, y un sentido de traición y es identificado entre los veteranos después de la exposición a eventos potencialmente dañinos moralmente (EPDM).Objetivo: Investigamos experimentalmente cómo las características de EPDM afectan la intensidad del DM y emociones moralmente negativas relacionadas en participantes con vasta experiencia militar.Método: Realizamos tres experimentos controlados y aleatorizados. Cada varón expuesto respondió con experiencia en combate activo (Estudio 1) y vasta experiencia militar (Estudio 2) a cuatro viñetas textuales que describen EPDM (niño/adulto y sospechoso inocente/no inocente) que suceden en un puesto de control israelí en Cisjordania. En el estudio 3, expusimos a los participantes a dos escenarios, donde las descripciones de los agentes de policía que aplicaban las restricciones de COVID-19 enfrentaron a los infractores del confinamiento.Resultados: Los participantes asignados a viñetas que describen el asesinato de un civil inocente exhibieron niveles más intensos de vergüenza y culpa que los asignados a las viñetas que describen el asesinato de una persona llevando una bomba. La religiosidad y la ideología política fueron fuertes predictores de culpa y vergüenza en respuesta a descripciones de tiroteos en puestos de control. Estos efectos desaparecieron en el Estudio 3, lo que sugiere que la ideología política impulsa al DM en los conflictos intergrupales.Conclusiones: Los antecedentes y las características relacionadas con el EPDM afectan el desarrollo del daño moral. Adicionalmente, los experimentos de laboratorio demuestran el potencial y las limitaciones de los estudios de daño moral y facilitan una comprensión de la etiología del daño moral de una manera no disponible para los clínicos. Por último, los hallazgos y las metodologías experimentales ofrecen perspectivas adicionales en la génesis del daño moral y las vías para la terapia y la profilaxis.


Subject(s)
Military Personnel/psychology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Veterans/psychology , Adult , Anger , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child, Preschool , Guilt , Humans , Israel/epidemiology , Male , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Shame , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
9.
PLoS One ; 16(8): e0239352, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1348360

ABSTRACT

The U.S. with only 4% of the world's population, bears a disproportionate share of infections in the COVID-19 pandemic. To understand this puzzle, we investigate how mitigation strategies and compliance can work together (or in opposition) to reduce (or increase) the spread of COVID-19 infection. Building on the Oxford index, we create state-specific stringency indices tailored to U.S. conditions, to measure the degree of strictness of public mitigation measures. A modified time-varying SEIRD model, incorporating this Stringency Index as well as a Compliance Indicator is then estimated with daily data for a sample of 6 U.S. states: New York, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, and Arizona. We provide a simple visual policy tool to evaluate the various combinations of mitigation policies and compliance that can reduce the basic reproduction number to less than one, the acknowledged threshold in the epidemiological literature to control the pandemic. Understanding of this relationship by both the public and policy makers is key to controlling the pandemic. This tool has the potential to be used in a real-time, dynamic fashion for flexible policy options. Our methodology can be applied to other countries and has the potential to be extended to other epidemiological models as well. With this first step in attempting to quantify the factors that go into the "black box" of the transmission factor ß, we hope that our work will stimulate further research in the dual role of mitigation policies and compliance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Administrative Personnel , Basic Reproduction Number/legislation & jurisprudence , Basic Reproduction Number/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Humans , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , United States/epidemiology
10.
Curr Opin Infect Dis ; 34(5): 393-400, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1338763

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic is a global catastrophe that has led to untold suffering and death. Many previously identified policy challenges in planning for large epidemics and pandemics have been brought to the fore, and new ones have emerged. Here, we review key policy challenges and lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in order to be better prepared for the future. RECENT FINDINGS: The most important challenges facing policymakers include financing outbreak preparedness and response in a complex political environment with limited resources, coordinating response efforts among a growing and diverse range of national and international actors, accurately assessing national outbreak preparedness, addressing the shortfall in the global health workforce, building surge capacity of both human and material resources, balancing investments in public health and curative services, building capacity for outbreak-related research and development, and reinforcing measures for infection prevention and control. SUMMARY: In recent years, numerous epidemics and pandemics have caused not only considerable loss of life, but billions of dollars of economic loss. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a wake-up call and led to the implementation of relevant policies and countermeasures. Nevertheless, many questions remain and much work to be done. Wise policies and approaches for outbreak control exist but will require the political will to implement them.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Epidemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Epidemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/prevention & control , Animals , Disease Outbreaks/legislation & jurisprudence , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Global Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Workforce/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence
12.
Hist Philos Life Sci ; 43(3): 86, 2021 Jul 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1298615

ABSTRACT

In this essay, the authors analyze the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of inequalities and socio-economic vulnerabilities. We argue that the current pandemic has been looked at mainly through the lens of biology, leaving sociological blind spots in the response to this pandemic that have had adverse effects. We conclude with the suggestion that apart from recommendations from health sciences, policy makers must also take into account local societal structures in order to design effective policies to control the contagion.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Socioeconomic Factors , Humans
13.
Indian J Med Ethics ; VI(1): 1-10, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257361

ABSTRACT

Many states in India have invoked the provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, as a major tool in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic. The current review attempts to discuss the ethical challenges in implementation of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, to combat Covid-19 in India. Implementation of the Act in India has exposed its major limitations. It remains merely as a "policing" Act with no emphasis on coordinated and scientific responses to outbreaks and without provisions for protecting the rights of citizens. The Epidemic Diseases Act in its current form has the potential to cause more harm than good. Furthermore, the Epidemic Disease (Amendment) Bill, 2020, has not addressed any of these concerns. There is need for a rights-based, people-focused and public health-oriented law in India to deal with epidemics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/legislation & jurisprudence , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/prevention & control , Public Health/ethics , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , India/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Indian J Med Ethics ; VI(1): 1-3, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257360

ABSTRACT

Large-scale vaccination with a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19 is the only way to conquer the ongoing lethal pandemic that has led to extraordinary social and economic upheaval globally. Fortunately, the world is on the verge of developing Covid-19 vaccines in an unprecedentedly short time. More than forty vaccines are in different stages of clinical trials, and a few are in the crucial phase III studies stage. A new demand for emergency use authorisation and rapid deployment of these vaccines before scrutinising phase III trial data is raging in different quarters. Can advancement of the deployment of these vaccines by even a few weeks give us rich public health dividends? Would it be ethical to deploy these novel vaccines based only on the safety and immunogenicity data generated by the phase-I and II clinical trials? Would it be ethical to deny vaccination of vulnerable populations against an untreatable infectious disease despite the availability of reasonably safe and efficacious vaccines for the want of phase III trial data? The answer is not straightforward, as there are many complexities involved. This commentary attempts to discuss some ethical issues involved in a decision to deploy Covid-19 vaccination before phase III trial results are declared.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Emergency Medical Services/ethics , Emergency Medical Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Morals , Vaccination/ethics , Vaccination/legislation & jurisprudence , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/prevention & control , Public Health/ethics , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , SARS-CoV-2
16.
J Appl Psychol ; 106(4): 518-529, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1236065

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to simultaneously advance theory and practice by understanding how the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic relates to new hire engagement. Prior research suggests starting a new job is an uncertain experience; we theorize that the COVID-19 pandemic creates additional environmental stressors that affect new hire engagement. First, we hypothesize that the occurrence of COVID-19 and unemployment rates relate negatively to engagement. Second, we theorize that the effects of the pandemic become more disruptive on new hire engagement as they gain tenure within the organization. Third, drawing from strategic management theory, we test whether States that introduce stronger COVID-19 policies help enhance the engagement of new hires. Examining a U.S. national sample of 12,577 newly hired (90 days or less) quick service restaurant employees across 9 months (January-September, 2020), we find support for these hypotheses. Subsequent model comparisons suggest there may be health stressors that shape engagement more strongly than purely economic stressors. These findings may be important because they highlight the experiences of workers more likely to be exposed to the pandemic and affected by COVID-related policies. Should the results generalize to other samples and jobs, this study offers potentially new research directions for understanding relationships between macro stressors and new hire perceptions and socialization. It also offers practical implications by helping organizations understand the importance of explicitly managing job insecurity, particularly in terms of COVID-19 policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , State Government , Unemployment/statistics & numerical data , Work Engagement , Workplace/legislation & jurisprudence , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Personnel Selection/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Unemployment/psychology , United States , Young Adult
19.
BMJ Open ; 11(3): e047310, 2021 03 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1166513

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of key population variables (age, gender, income and education) on perceptions of governmental effectiveness in communicating about COVID-19, helping meet needs for food and shelter, providing physical and mental healthcare services, and allocating dedicated resources to vulnerable populations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study carried out in June 2020. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 13 426 individuals from 19 countries. RESULTS: More than 60% of all respondents felt their government had communicated adequately during the pandemic. National variances ranged from 83.4% in China down to 37.2% in Brazil, but overall, males and those with a higher income were more likely to rate government communications highly. Almost half (48.8%) of the respondents felt their government had ensured adequate access to physical health services (ranging from 89.3% for Singapore to 27.2% for Poland), with higher ratings reported by younger and higher-income respondents. Ratings of mental health support were lower overall (32.9%, ranging from 74.8% in China to around 15% in Brazil and Sweden), but highest among younger respondents. Providing support for basic necessities of food and housing was rated highest overall in China (79%) and lowest in Ecuador (14.6%), with higher ratings reported by younger, higher-income and better-educated respondents across all countries. The same three demographic groups tended to rate their country's support to vulnerable groups more highly than other respondents, with national scores ranging from around 75% (Singapore and China) to 19.5% (Sweden). Subgroup findings are mostly independent of intercountry variations with 15% of variation being due to intercountry differences. CONCLUSIONS: The tendency of younger, better-paid and better-educated respondents to rate their country's response to the pandemic more highly, suggests that government responses must be nuanced and pay greater attention to the needs of less-advantaged citizens as they continue to address this pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Government Programs , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Age Factors , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Economic Status , Government , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic Factors
20.
Int J Equity Health ; 20(1): 86, 2021 03 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154011

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Our research summarized policy disparities in response to the first wave of COVID-19 between China and Germany. We look forward to providing policy experience for other countries still in severe epidemics. METHODS: We analyzed data provided by National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China and Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center for the period 10 January 2020 to 25 May 252,020. We used generalized linear model to evaluate the associations between the main control policies and the number of confirmed cases and the policy disparities in response to the first wave of COVID-19 between China and Germany. RESULTS: The generalized linear models show that the following factors influence the cumulative number of confirmed cases in China: the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism; locking down the worst-hit areas; the highest level response to public health emergencies; the expansion of medical insurance coverage to suspected patients; makeshift hospitals; residential closed management; counterpart assistance. The following factors influence the cumulative number of confirmed cases in Germany: the Novel Coronavirus Crisis Command; large gathering cancelled; real-time COVID-19 risk assessment; the medical emergency plan; schools closure; restrictions on the import of overseas epidemics; the no-contact protocol. CONCLUSIONS: There are two differences between China and Germany in non-pharmaceutical interventions: China adopted the blocking strategy, and Germany adopted the first mitigation and then blocking strategy; China's goal is to eliminate the virus, and Germany's goal is to protect high-risk groups to reduce losses. At the same time, the policies implemented by the two countries have similarities: strict blockade is a key measure to control the source of infection, and improving medical response capabilities is an important way to reduce mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/prevention & control , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , China/epidemiology , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL