Measuring citizens' engagement during emergencies: Psychometric validation of the Public Health Engagement Scale for Emergency Settings (PHEs-E).
Adult
Aged
COVID-19
/ prevention & control
Community Participation
Cross-Sectional Studies
Emergencies
Female
Guideline Adherence
/ trends
Humans
Italy
/ epidemiology
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Theoretical
Pandemics
/ prevention & control
Patient Compliance
/ psychology
Psychometrics
/ methods
Public Health
/ trends
SARS-CoV-2
/ pathogenicity
Stakeholder Participation
/ psychology
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
20
09
2021
accepted:
07
12
2021
entrez:
22
12
2021
pubmed:
23
12
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of citizens' behaviors in the containment of the virus. Individuals might change their intention to adhere to public health prescriptions depending on various personal characteristics, including their own emotional status, which has been recognized to be a crucial psychological factor in orienting people's adherence to public health recommendation during emergency settings. In particular, it is crucial to support citizens' alliance with authorities and feeling of trust: public engagement is a concept that refers to the general involvement of citizens into public affairs which is generally considered an effective approach to enhance citizens' understanding of their crucial role in public affairs. However, so far there is no agreement on the metrics and indexes that should be used to measures public engagement during a health crisis. The aim of this paper is to validate a psychometric scale (PHEs-E), which intends to measure the readiness of individuals to adhere to the prescribed behavioral change to contain the emergency. Data were collected throughout the pandemic in Italy: in particular, five independent samples were recruited starting from March 2020 to March 2021. Results showed that the proposed measure has good psychometric characteristics. A general linear model was computed to assess the differences of public engagement across the different data points and among citizens with different sociodemographic characteristics. Correlations with other psychological constructs (i.e. Anxiety, Depression and Self-Efficacy) were also tested, showing that more engaged citizens have a lower level of anxiety and depression, and a higher self-efficacy. This study's findings indicate that individuals' characteristics may differentiate citizens' motivation to engage in public health behavioral recommendation to prevent the COVID-19 contagion. However the scale could be useful to perform a psychological monitoring of psychological readiness to engage in public health strategies to face critical events and settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34936693
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261733
pii: PONE-D-21-30393
pmc: PMC8694417
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0261733Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 May;4(5):460-471
pubmed: 32355299
J Psychiatr Res. 2020 Oct;129:118-121
pubmed: 32912591
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018 Jul 19;12:1261-1271
pubmed: 30050288
Lancet Public Health. 2020 May;5(5):e249-e250
pubmed: 32302535
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020 Oct 21;13:1215-1221
pubmed: 33116566
Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Aug;35(8):785-788
pubmed: 32808095
Eur J Dev Res. 2022;34(1):432-454
pubmed: 33456209
Health Educ Q. 1986 Spring;13(1):73-92
pubmed: 3957687
Health Psychol Rev. 2021 Sep;15(3):350-370
pubmed: 34027798
Health Psychol. 2016 Nov;35(11):1178-1188
pubmed: 27280365
Science. 2003 Feb 14;299(5609):977
pubmed: 12586907
Comput Human Behav. 2020 Sep;110:106380
pubmed: 32292239
Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Oct;100(10):1918-1927
pubmed: 28583722
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 11;15(9):e0238613
pubmed: 32915822
Public Health. 2020 Dec;189:91-93
pubmed: 33189941
Health Psychol. 2000 Sep;19(5):487-95
pubmed: 11007157
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0244534
pubmed: 33411827
Milbank Q. 2021 Jun;99(2):369-392
pubmed: 33822424
Curr Psychol. 2022;41(11):7918-7926
pubmed: 33424206
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2022 Apr;16(2):714-717
pubmed: 33046178
Cogn Emot. 2022 Feb;36(1):120-136
pubmed: 34132171
Ann Behav Med. 2020 Oct 1;54(10):713-727
pubmed: 32914831
Psychosomatics. 1971 Nov-Dec;12(6):371-9
pubmed: 5172928
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 27;12(6):e0179865
pubmed: 28654686
Health Commun. 2010 Jun;25(4):312-22
pubmed: 20512713
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Sep;61(3):427-34
pubmed: 1941513
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Oct;2(10):e503
pubmed: 32838253
Public Underst Sci. 2014 Jan;23(1):4-15
pubmed: 24434705
Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Dec;1(12):873-880
pubmed: 31024188
Annu Rev Public Health. 2015 Mar 18;36:361-74
pubmed: 25581148
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Jul 28;1:27
pubmed: 12952544
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 08;17(18):
pubmed: 32911779
Open Heart. 2018 Mar 27;5(1):e000764
pubmed: 29632680
Front Psychol. 2015 Mar 27;6:274
pubmed: 25870566
Implement Sci. 2018 Jul 26;13(1):98
pubmed: 30045735
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920
pubmed: 32112714
Pers Individ Dif. 2021 Jun;175:110692
pubmed: 33526954
Psychol Med. 2021 Jan;51(2):201-211
pubmed: 33436130