RESUMEN
AIM: Non-pharmaceutical interventions such as lockdowns have played a critical role in preventing the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, but may increase psychological burden. This study sought to examine emotions reflected in social media discourse following the introduction of social contact restrictions in Central Europe. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: German-language Twitter posts containing '#corona' and '#covid-19' were collected between 2020/03/18 - 2020/04/24. A total of 79,760 tweets were included in the final analysis. Rates of expressions of positive emotion, anxiety, sadness and anger were compared over time. Bi-term topic models were applied to extract topics of discussion and examine association with emotions. RESULTS: Rates of anxiety, sadness and positive emotion decreased in the period following the introduction of social contact restrictions. A total of 16 topics were associated with emotions, which related to four general themes: social contact restrictions, life during lockdown, infection-related issues, and impact of the pandemic on public and private life. Several unique patterns of association between topics and emotions emerged. CONCLUSION: Results suggest decreasing polarity of emotions among the public following the introduction of social contact restrictions. Monitoring of social media activity may prove beneficial for an adaptive understanding of changing public concerns during the Covid-19 pandemic.
RESUMEN
COVID-19-related stigmatization of affected people or people at risk of infection has been shown to enhance the reluctance of affected individuals to use health services and reduce their mental health. It is thus highly important to gain a thorough understanding of COVID-19-related stigmatization. The present study's first aim was to explore stigmatization profiles of experienced stigmatization (anticipated stigmatization, internalized stigmatization, enacted stigmatization, disclosure concerns) and stigmatization practices in 371 German people at high risk of infection using latent class analyses. The second aim was to investigate the relationship between stigmatization profiles and psychological distress via multiple regression analysis taking into account other possible negative and positive risk factors. Our results showed two stigmatization profiles: "high stigmatization group" and "low stigmatization group". Belonging to the "high stigmatization group" was significantly correlated with higher levels of psychological distress. Other risk factors significantly related to psychological distress were mental health disorders in the past, exposure to COVID-19, fear related to COVID-19, perceived risk of being infected, lower perceived self-efficacy, and lower subjective knowledge about COVID-19.