Trends in educational disparities in preventive behaviours, risk perception, perceived effectiveness and trust in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.
Believed effectiveness
COVID-19
Educational status
Preventive behaviour
Risk perception
Trust
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 05 2022
06 05 2022
Historique:
received:
18
02
2022
accepted:
25
04
2022
entrez:
6
5
2022
pubmed:
7
5
2022
medline:
11
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Educational disparities in health and health behaviours have always been relevant in public health research and are particularly challenging in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. First studies suggest that factors important for the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as prevention behaviour, risk perception, perceived effectiveness of containment measures, and trust in authorities handling the pandemic, vary by educational status. This study builds on recent debate by examining trends in absolute and relative educational disparities in these factors in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Data stem from four waves of the GESIS Panel surveyed between March and October 2020 in Germany (15,902 observations from 4,690 individuals). Trends in absolute and relative disparities were examined for preventive behaviour, risk perception, perceived effectiveness of COVID-19 containment measures, and trust in individuals and institutions handling the COVID-19 pandemic by educational status using sex, age, residence, nationality, children under 16 living in household, family status, household size, the Big Five Inventory, and income class as control factors. Descriptive statistics as well as unadjusted and adjusted linear regression models and random effects models were performed. We observed an initially rising and then falling trend in preventive behaviour with consistent and significant absolute and relative disparities with a lower preventive behaviour among low educated individuals. Indication of a U-shaped trend with consistent significantly lower values among lower educated individuals was found for risk perception, whereas perceived effectiveness and trust decreased significantly over time but did not significantly vary by educational status. Results indicate persistent educational disparities in preventive behaviour and risk perception and a general decline in perceived effectiveness and trust in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. To address this overall downward trend and existing disparities, comprehensive and strategic management is needed to communicate the risks of the pandemic and the benefits of COVID-19 containment measures. Both must be adapted to the different needs of educational groups in particular in order to overcome gaps in preventive behaviour and risk perception by educational status.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Educational disparities in health and health behaviours have always been relevant in public health research and are particularly challenging in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. First studies suggest that factors important for the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as prevention behaviour, risk perception, perceived effectiveness of containment measures, and trust in authorities handling the pandemic, vary by educational status. This study builds on recent debate by examining trends in absolute and relative educational disparities in these factors in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.
METHODS
Data stem from four waves of the GESIS Panel surveyed between March and October 2020 in Germany (15,902 observations from 4,690 individuals). Trends in absolute and relative disparities were examined for preventive behaviour, risk perception, perceived effectiveness of COVID-19 containment measures, and trust in individuals and institutions handling the COVID-19 pandemic by educational status using sex, age, residence, nationality, children under 16 living in household, family status, household size, the Big Five Inventory, and income class as control factors. Descriptive statistics as well as unadjusted and adjusted linear regression models and random effects models were performed.
RESULTS
We observed an initially rising and then falling trend in preventive behaviour with consistent and significant absolute and relative disparities with a lower preventive behaviour among low educated individuals. Indication of a U-shaped trend with consistent significantly lower values among lower educated individuals was found for risk perception, whereas perceived effectiveness and trust decreased significantly over time but did not significantly vary by educational status.
CONCLUSIONS
Results indicate persistent educational disparities in preventive behaviour and risk perception and a general decline in perceived effectiveness and trust in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. To address this overall downward trend and existing disparities, comprehensive and strategic management is needed to communicate the risks of the pandemic and the benefits of COVID-19 containment measures. Both must be adapted to the different needs of educational groups in particular in order to overcome gaps in preventive behaviour and risk perception by educational status.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35524252
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13341-3
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13341-3
pmc: PMC9073434
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
903Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Sci Rep. 2022 Mar 9;12(1):3824
pubmed: 35264597
Eur J Polit Res. 2021 Nov;60(4):1007-1017
pubmed: 33362332
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Apr;5(4):529-538
pubmed: 33686204
Front Public Health. 2020 Sep 24;8:572561
pubmed: 33072712
Eur J Public Health. 2020 Aug 1;30(4):617-618
pubmed: 32638998
Appl Res Qual Life. 2022;17(2):559-578
pubmed: 33564341
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 6;10(1):16598
pubmed: 33024152
Lancet Public Health. 2021 Apr;6(4):e192
pubmed: 33773633
Health Promot Int. 2019 Oct 1;34(5):e1-e17
pubmed: 30107564
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 5;15(8):e0236917
pubmed: 32756573
Lancet. 2020 Apr 11;395(10231):1225-1228
pubmed: 32178769
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021 Jul;61:102373
pubmed: 34079690
R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Aug 12;7(8):200644
pubmed: 32968525
R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Oct 14;7(10):201199
pubmed: 33204475
Fisc Stud. 2020 Jun;41(2):291-319
pubmed: 32836542
Public Health Res Pract. 2020 Dec 9;30(4):
pubmed: 33294907
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):533-534
pubmed: 32087114
J Health Monit. 2018 Mar 20;3(Suppl 1):1-24
pubmed: 35586261
Lancet Public Health. 2020 May;5(5):e251-e252
pubmed: 32199083
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2032335
pubmed: 33301021
Curr Psychol. 2021 Jul 13;:1-11
pubmed: 34276170
PLoS One. 2021 May 12;16(5):e0251694
pubmed: 33979413
BMC Public Health. 2021 Apr 21;21(1):765
pubmed: 33882896
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020 Sep;74(9):681-682
pubmed: 32669357
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 30;17(15):
pubmed: 32751484
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020 Nov;74(11):964-968
pubmed: 32535550
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Dec;63(12):3113-23
pubmed: 16978751
Int J Public Health. 2017 Jul;62(6):709-716
pubmed: 28534061
Sci Rep. 2021 May 6;11(1):9669
pubmed: 33958617
Risk Anal. 2004 Apr;24(2):311-22
pubmed: 15078302