While the first case of COVID-19 was declared on March 2 2020 in Senegal, the government banned the attendance of places of worship on 14 March, as a first measure. On March 23, it introduced a curfew, a ban on movement between regions, and the closure of markets. The objective of this study is to measure and understand the acceptability of these four governmental measures as well as the level of public trust in the state to fight the pandemic. We carried out a mixed-method research. The acceptability variables were defined using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). At the quantitative level, we carried out a telephone survey (June/July 2020) at the national level (n = 813) with a sampling strategy by marginal quotas. We conducted a qualitative survey (August/September 2020) with a nested sample (n = 30). The results show a relatively high acceptability of the measures but a heterogeneity of responses. People considered curfews to be much more important (85.7% [83.2%; 88.0%]) than the closure of places of worship (55.4%; [51.9%; 58.7%]), which is least in line with the values and positive affective attitude. Several positive unintended effects of the curfew were stated (security and social/family cohesion). People over the age of 60 have more confidence in the government to fight the pandemic than people under the age of 25, although not significant (7.72 ± 3.12 vs. 7.07 ± 3.11, p = 0.1); and they are more in favour of the closure of places of worship. The more regions are affected by the pandemic, the less confidence respondents report in the government and the less they perceive the measures as effective. The results confirm the importance of government communication and trust in the state to strengthen the acceptability of pandemic measures. Important differences in acceptability show the need to adapt measures and their explanations, instead of unqualified universal action.
Background: While the first case of COVID-19 was declared on March 2 2020 in Senegal, the government banned the attendance of places of worship on 14 March. On March 23, it introduced a curfew, a ban on movement between regions, and the closure of markets. These measures were lifted in May and June 2020. The objective of this study is to measure and understand the acceptability of these four governmental measures as well as the level of public trust in the state to fight the pandemic. Methods: We carried out a mixed-method research with an explanatory sequential estimate. The acceptability variables were defined using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). At the quantitative level, we carried out a telephone survey (June/July 2020) at the national level (n=813) with a sampling strategy by marginal quotas. To understand these results, we conducted a qualitative survey (August/September 2020) with a nested sample (n=30). Results: The results show a relatively high acceptability of the measures but a heterogeneity of responses. People considered curfews to be much more important (85.7% [83.2%; 88.0%]) than the closure of places of worship (55.4%; [51.9%; 58.7%]), which is least in line with the values and positive affective attitude. With the lifting of certain measures, respondents questioned the consistency of the decisions. Several positive unintended effects of the curfew were stated (security and social/family cohesion). People over the age of 60 have more confidence in the government to fight the pandemic than people under the age of 25 (7.72 ± 3.12 vs. 7.07 ± 3.11, p = 0.1); and they are more in favour of the closure of places of worship. Men have less confidence in the government than women (6.84 ± 3.21 vs. 7.47 ± 3.05; p = 0.001). The more regions are affected by the pandemic, the less confidence respondents report in the government and the less they perceive the measures as effective.Conclusions: The results confirm the importance of government communication and trust in the state to strengthen the acceptability of pandemic measures. Important differences in acceptability show the need to adapt measures and their explanations, instead of unqualified universal action.
Purpose To evaluate functional outcomes, return to work, and reoperations associated with lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTT) for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Methods This is a retrospective study performed by a single surgeon with minimum 1-year follow-up. LTT was performed using an open (n = 9; 60%) or arthroscopically assisted (n = 6, 40%) technique. Outcomes included failure rate, range of motion, satisfaction, return to work, and pre- and postoperative functional scores, as well as American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and the Simple Shoulder Test. Results Fifteen patients were included. LTT was performed using an open or arthroscopically assisted technique. Mean age was 52 (range 31-62 years), 13 (92.9%) were manual laborers, and 9 (60%) had a worker’s compensation claim. Three patients (20%) underwent conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Of the remaining 12 patients, there were significant improvements in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Simple Shoulder Test at 24.1 ± 9.6 (range 12-38.5) months. Active forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation were all significantly improved. Postoperative satisfaction ratings indicated 67% of the revision-free cohort was “very satisfied” and 33% was “somewhat satisfied” with their outcome. Seven (50%) returned to full duty, 4 (28.6%) returned to modified duty, and 3 (21.4%) were unable to return to work. Two patients (open techniques) underwent a superficial wound debridement for seroma and wound breakdown. Conclusions LTT results in successful clinical outcomes with a high rate of return to work in a challenging patient population. However, only 67% of patients rated themselves as “very satisfied,” and 20% of patients were revised to reverse shoulder arthroplasty before 1 year. Limited preoperative active forward elevation (<90°) appears to predict poor functional results and risk for reoperation. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.