Public awareness of SARS-CoV-2 affects health behavior

New research published in Risk Research Journal In April 2020, public health actions aimed at preventing the spread of the virus were shown to be affected by different perceptions of public risk around the world.

The virus responsible for the global pandemic COVID-19, called SARS-CoV2, spread worldwide at unprecedented speeds, causing immeasurable deaths. From January to April 2020, the virus spread from Wuhan, China to more than 187 countries and territories with staggering proportions worldwide. The spread of the virus has caused many economic downturns, killing more than 250,000 people. Studies show that men may be at a higher risk of death than women. Minority groups have also been suggested to be at increased risk.

Including risk

Governments around the world have taken various steps to control the spread of the virus, from a relatively light approach in Sweden to complete blockade in Australia, India, New Zealand, South Korea and Taiwan. These governments have adopted these measures to prevent the overwhelming influx of coronavirus patients from overwhelming healthcare services.

However, from previous pandemic and widespread epidemic experiences, Effectiveness of Such policies rely heavily on the public perception of both social and personal risks. Threat assessment and risk perception are key determinants of behavior in protection motivation theory and motivate the public to work with government recommendations and policies to control viruses and adopt personal protection measures. Play an important role. This includes frequent handwashing, social distances, off-limits to public places, and wearing face masks.

In other words, the efficiency of the country’s response to the pandemic and its response to the pandemic is affected by the answers to the questions. What psychological factors influence their concerns? These factors play a fundamental role in determining how a pandemic spreads.

Understand risk perception

Current research by a team of researchers at the University of Cambridge seeks to answer these questions.

“The perception of risk is a subjective psychological component that is affected by cognitive, emotional, social, cultural, and personal variability, both between individuals and in different countries,” the researchers say. I am. Due to its complexity, little is known about how the public views the risks posed by infectious diseases compared to commonly encountered environmental issues.

Most of the research into risk awareness so far has occurred during previous pandemics, such as the 2009 swine flu pandemic. These studies are not rationale-based and are primarily aimed at investigating public risk perceptions and explaining findings. Most of these previous studies are also limited by one or more of the following drawbacks:

• They quantify cognitive or emotional risk perception using only a single item
• Their base is too narrow and lacks international correlation.

What is included in the approach?

Therefore, the Cambridge team used a broader, theory-based approach that included over 50 years of risk awareness research. The underlying approach is the subject’s personal experience of risk (in terms of actual experience and emotions), an intellectual understanding of the risk of the whole population, called the tradition of cognition, and personal management.

The latter includes cultural theory, social amplification of risk (increased communication of risk through socially shared messages), value and trust, and effectiveness in government, science, and health professionals. Individual variables such as age, gender and education that influence risk perception are also integrated into the model. Due to the overall nature of the model, it is not overly influenced by a single parameter.

How was the research done?

Therefore, the current study collates the data to measure indicators, including public perceptions of potential risk (cognitive factors, risk concerns-emotional factors, and how common they are). did. risk. This is the first paper to present an international analysis of the overall risk perception of COVID-19 by approximately 7,000 participants from 10 countries from mid-March to mid-April 2020.

The team has collected data from 10 countries around the world for geographical and cultural diversity. These consist of the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Mexico, Japan and South Korea.

They use age and gender assignments that work in almost every country, targeting 700 subjects from each. The survey paid for the participants to pay was conducted via a web browser and took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Participants provided a total of 6,991 participants with information on the severity of the pandemic, the likelihood of a family or friend being attacked by the pandemic within the next 6 months, and items that could help the participant to describe their level of concern. Collected Virus.

“Without drug treatment, people rely on changing their behavior to brake this pandemic,” said Dr. Thunder van der Linden, who led the study. “The willingness to adopt protective behaviors such as frequent hand washing and physical distance can be influenced, in part, by how the virus perceives it as dangerous.”

What did the research find?

Overall, risk awareness was high in most countries. The study found that risk perception was highest in the United Kingdom and Spain, followed by the United States, and lowest in South Korea and Mexico. They also found that men were less at risk than women, but they were more likely to have severe or serious illness.

Individuals who have had direct contact with COVID-19 are more aware of risk than those who are not, and demonstrate the importance of the emotional or emotional component of risk perception.

Similarly, those who hear about the virus from family and friends see it as a higher risk than others, proving a role in social amplification. Interestingly, in 9/10 countries, with the exception of South Korea, those who believe that they need to do something for others or for society are more likely than individualism to have little or no benefit. They tend to be at risk.

This could help harness public cooperation, says researcher Claudia Schneider. “Appealing to prosocial motivation can be an important part of resolving the social dilemma during a pandemic.”

An outstanding and unique worldview in countries such as the United States, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Japan and the United Kingdom reduces risk perception and compliance with recommended preventive health measures. “Recognizing that the government limits people’s freedom may cause psychological repulsion to some with a strong individualistic worldview,” said another researcher, Sara Dryhurst. I have a comment.

Studies show that trust in science or health care professionals is associated with increased risk awareness, while trust in government is associated with reduced risk awareness. Believing in an individual’s effectiveness and ability to deal with things leads to a higher risk perception than those who are powerless or rely on others to do things.

These factors worked in Germany, Spain, and the United States.

Somewhat surprisingly, Italy, one of the countries most hit by the coronavirus, had a relatively low average risk perception.

What is the meaning of research?

Factors that contribute to the difference in risk perception between people in different countries are, first of all, individualistic thinking, friendship, and the degree of direct experience of COVID-19. Risk awareness is largely associated with a high probability of preventive health behaviors that help control risk.

This study shows that most of the contributing factors for variability in risk perception are currently unknown. Further research should cover the objective knowledge of COVID-19, as well as the multifaceted assessment of social norms and general sentiment regarding illness.

For those in power, risk means “the probability of getting a disease multiplied by the magnitude of the consequences.” However, for men on the road, risk is perceived based on their experience of personal and collective risk, as well as several factors related to their personal and social value.

Alexandra Freeman, Head of the Winton Center for Risk and Evidence Communication, summarizes: “The government wants people to stay inside and give up their lives to protect their society. It’s important to understand how people respond to the information and instructions they receive. About viruses . “

The study concludes that information about risk-awareness factors around the world can help policymakers during the crisis and develop evidence-based risk communication strategies.