Background: Particularly during the early and middle stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a population's compliance with precautionary measures (e.g., hygiene rules, smart working, travel restrictions, and quarantine) is paramount in preventing the virus from spreading.Objective: The investigation and documentation of different socio-demographic and personality-specific factors in regards to preventative measures and consequent specific health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the Health Belief Model.Method: An online survey was conducted on N = 3,006 individuals living in Germany and Austria during the early stages of lockdown. The questionnaire consisted of a self-administered section, exploring the dimensions posited in the Health Belief Model: perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, perceived barriers, perceived benefits of health-promoting measures, and engagement in health-promoting behaviors. Additionally, the following standardized scales were used to record personality determinants: the Stress Coping Style Questionnaire SVF 78 to evaluate coping and processing strategies in stressful circumstances, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) to assess the emotional state induced by the coronavirus crisis, the UI-18 scale to diagnose the intolerance of uncertainty, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) to assess anxiety.Results: In line with the Health Belief model, four groups were created based on perceived susceptibility and engagement in health-promoting behaviors, and consequently studied in relation to personality determinants. Those four groups differed significantly in regards to almost all personality dimensions (p ≤ 0.005). Group 1 (n = 450) shows a reduced engagement with protective measures and displays underestimation of the COVID-19-pandemic. Group 2 (n = 984) displays many positive personality variables and high compliance with protective measures. Group 3 (n = 468) perceives the subjective risk of disease as high, but high emotional discomfort and stress caused by the protective measures leads to the activation of a complex fear defense. Group 4 (n = 1,004) is highly anxious and therefore compliant.Conclusion: This typification has implications for establishing the appropriate support systems. This is particularly important to encourage compliance with preventive regulations within the groups, which showed poor abidance for several reasons. For Group 1, further education on the realistic threat and efficient protective measures is as central as the fostering of empathy for others; with its resource-conscious exemplary behavior Group 2 could be used as a positive social role model. Group 3 would benefit from promoting self-care, while Group 4 requires information on psychosocial assistance availability in order to mitigate the high stress to which the group members are subjected.
Background The first wave of the COVID-19-pandemic hit different countries with varying degrees of severity, so that differences in the type and level of emergency measures were also necessary. It can be assumed that the psychological burden was higher in countries subjected to a more severe course of the pandemic (Italy) than in countries subjected to a less severe one (Germany, Austria). Objective To investigate and contrast the wellbeing of the population in Italy, Austria, and Germany in the early phase of the first lockdown. Method Online survey on N = 4289 individuals. The questionnaire comprised a self-administered section, exploring the dimensions: perceived severity of COVID-19, perceived risk of disease, concerns related to COVID-19, emergency measure acceptance and emotional distress due to emergency measures; and standardized scales to record emotional state and coping: Stress-Coping-Style Questionnaire, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, State-Trait-Anxiety-Inventory. Results The three countries displayed significant differences in all investigated dimensions (p < .001). Italian participants assessed the COVID-19 virus as much more dangerous (p < .001), but despite the prevalence of the virus, the subjective risk of disease was perceived to be lower in Italy (p < .001). This could be a positive effect of the restrictive curfews set by the government in Italy. The emergency measures were generally perceived to be very effective in all three countries, but due to the duration and the severity of the measures, the fear and stress-reaction were the strongest among Italian participants (p < .001). Conclusion The stricter measures in Italy prevented an application of many positive stress processing strategies, which, in turn, fostered the perpetuation of stresses and fear.
Background: The first wave of the COVID-19-pandemic hit different countries with varying degrees of severity, so that differences in the type and level of emergency measures were also necessary. It can be assumed that the psychological burden was higher in countries with a more severe process of the pandemic (Italy) than in countries with a less severe (Germany, Austria). Objective: To investigate und contrast the wellbeing of the population in Italy, Austria and Germany in the early phase of the first lockdown. Method: Online survey on N= 4289 individuals. The questionnaire comprised 1. self-administered section, exploring the dimensions perceived severity of COVID-19, perceived risk of disease, concerns related to COVID-19, emergency measures acceptance and emotional distress due to emergency measures 2. standardized scales to record personality determinants: Stress-CopingStyle-Questionnaire, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, State-Trait-Anxiety-Inventory. Results: The three countries displayed significant differences in all personality dimensions. Italian participants assessed the COVID-19 virus as much more dangerous, but despite the prevalence of the virus, the subjective risk of disease is perceived to be lower in Italy. This could be a positive effect of the restrictive curfews set by the government in Italy. The emergency measures were generally perceived to be very effective in all three countries, but due to duration and the severity of the measures the fear and stress-reaction was the strongest within the Italians. Conclusion: The stricter measures in Italy prevented an application of many positive stress processing strategies, which, in turn, fostered the preservation of stresses and fear.
Zusammenfassung Hintergrund In der COVID-19-Pandemie ist die Einhaltung von gesetzlich angeordneten Präventionsmaßnahmen durch die Bevölkerung von größter Bedeutung, um die Ausbreitung des Virus einzudämmen. Dabei ist davon auszugehen, dass diese mit spezifischen Belastungen einhergehen, die von verschiedenen Bevölkerungsgruppen unterschiedlich gut bewältigt werden. Zielsetzung Erfassung der Akzeptanz und Belastungen bzgl. der gesetzten Präventionsmaßnahmen, aber auch der Bewältigungsmöglichkeiten in Abhängigkeit von soziodemografischen und persönlichkeitsspezifischen Faktoren. Methode Online-Befragung an N=3006 Personen, die während der frühen Phase der ersten Lockdowns in Deutschland und Österreich lebten, mittels eines selbstentwickelten Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Sorgen und Akzeptanz der von der Regierungen gesetzten Präventionsmaßnahmen. Zusätzlich wurden die Fragebögen Stressverarbeitungsfragebogen (SVF 78), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Unsicherheitsintoleranz-Skala (UI-18) und das State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) vorgegeben. Ergebnisse Insgesamt zeigte sich eine hohe Akzeptanz der gesetzlich angeordneten Präventionsmaßnahmen. Allerdings sind die emotionalen Reaktionen auf diese nicht für alle Bevölkerungsgruppen gleich: 18–29-Jährige zeigten signifikant höhere negative emotionale Reaktionen im Vergleich zu allen anderen Gruppen. Eine Clusteranalyse an dieser jungen Bevölkerungsgruppe ergab fünf Gruppen, die gruppenspezifische Belastungs- und Bewältigungsprofile aufzeigen. Diskussion Jüngere werden im Zusammenhang mit der Pandemie häufig als besonders vulnerable Gruppe beschrieben. Die vorliegende Studie zeigt jedoch, dass die „Jüngeren“ nicht als homogene Gruppe zu betrachten sind und daher differenzierte Interventionsstrategien anzuwenden sind.
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.