The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on socially marginalised women: Material and mental health outcomes.

There is little knowledge about how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted people who are socially marginalised, including individuals who face barriers when attempting to access services such as social safety nets, the labour market, or housing. There is even less understanding about women living under these circumstances. The aims of this study are therefore to examine the material and mental impacts of COVID-19 among socially marginalised women (compared with socially marginalised men) as well as influencing factors. The study is based on survey data (N = 304) involving people who are clients of social care organisations in thirteen European countries. The sample includes clients: a) living in their homes, b) in facilities, and c) on the street and in temporary accommodations. Results indicate that although material impacts were not significantly different for female and male respondents, socially marginalised women have experienced more severe mental impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic than socially marginalised men. Female respondents have been significantly more worried about COVID-19 infection than men, and they report significantly more PTSD-symptoms related to the pandemic. Quantitative results indicate that these differences are related to the fact that the female respondents worry more about health risks (e.g. falling ill). Female respondents also seem to be harder hit mentally by the material impacts of COVID-19. Among the free text survey answers regarding the biggest problem for the respondents after the outbreak of the pandemic, the most prevalent reply (among both men and women) was related to material impacts of the pandemic (39% of the respondents), particularly the loss of work (65%). While women reported deterioration of social relations more often, men mentioned lacking access to services more frequently.

Self-imposed social isolation among clients of social care organisations in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although self-imposed social isolation is an important way of reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection, previous research indicates that this behaviour varies substantially between different groups and individuals. Socially marginalized people are generally less involved in protective health behaviours, but there are few studies of their COVID-19 protective behaviours. The aims of the paper are therefore to: 1) compare self-imposed social isolation to avoid COVID-19 among socially marginalized groups, and to 2) examine factors influencing this, focusing especially on the role of social capital, risk awareness and sources of information about COVID-19. The study is based on survey data (N = 173) from people who are clients of social care organisations in Estonia, Norway, Hungary and Portugal. The sample involves clients living: a) in their homes, b) in facilities, and c) on the street or under temporary arrangements. Results indicate that the level of social isolation among the marginalized groups is comparable to that of the general population in previous studies. As hypothesized, we find that respondents living on the street or under temporary arrangements engage in less self-imposed social isolation than e.g. the respondents living in their homes. We also find lower levels of risk awareness, social capital and trust in authorities' information about COVID-19 among people living on the street or under temporary arrangements. Only linking social capital and trust in authorities' information was significantly related to respondents' social isolation, and not worry for COVID-19 infection. Thus, it seems that respondents largely self-isolated because of "duty" and not worry for infection.

Approaches to 'vulnerability' in eight European disaster management systems.

While social vulnerability in the face of disasters has received increasing academic attention, relatively little is known about the extent to which that knowledge is reflected in practice by institutions involved in disaster management. This study charts the practitioners' approaches to disaster vulnerability in eight European countries: Belgium; Estonia; Finland; Germany; Hungary; Italy; Norway; and Sweden. It draws on a comparative document analysis and 95 interviews with disaster managers and reveals significant differences across countries in terms of the ontology of vulnerability, its sources, reduction strategies, and the allocation of related duties. To advance the debate and provide conceptual clarity, we put forward a heuristic model to facilitate different understandings of vulnerability along the dimensions of human agency and technological structures as well as social support through private relations and state actors. This could guide risk analysis of and planning for major hazards and could be adapted further to particular types of disasters.

Resilience in care organisations: challenges in maintaining support for vulnerable people in Europe during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic has challenged the resilience of care organisations (and those dependent on them), especially when services are stopped or restricted. This study focuses on the experiences of care organisations that offer services to individuals in highly precarious situations in 10 European countries. It is based on 32 qualitative interviews and three workshops with managers and staff. The four key types of organisations reviewed largely had the same adaptation patterns in all countries. The most drastic changes were experienced by day centres, which had to suspend or digitise services, whereas night shelters and soup kitchens had to reorganise broadly their work; residential facilities were minimally affected. Given the drastic surge in demand for services, reliance on an overburdened (volunteer) workforce, and a lack of crisis plans, the care organisations with long-term trust networks with clients and intra-organisational cooperation adapted easier. The outcomes were worse for new clients, migrants, psychologically vulnerable people, and those with limited communicative abilities.