The perception of risk in contracting and spreading COVID-19 amongst individuals, households and vulnerable groups in England: a longitudinal qualitative study.
COVID-19 pandemic
Inequalities
Pandemic restrictions
Public involvement
Risk
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 04 2023
05 04 2023
Historique:
received:
01
09
2022
accepted:
14
03
2023
medline:
7
4
2023
entrez:
5
4
2023
pubmed:
6
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Social distancing restrictions to manage the COVID-19 pandemic were put in place from March 2020 in the United Kingdom (UK), with those classed as "highly clinically vulnerable" advised to shield entirely and remain at home. However, personal risk perception has been shown to comprise of various elements beyond those outlined in the national pandemic guidance. It is unclear whether those deemed COVID-19 vulnerable identified as high-risk to COVID-19 and thus complied with the relevant advice. The aim of this research is to explore the perception of risk in catching and spreading COVID-19, amongst individuals from individual households, and vulnerable groups in a region of the UK. Two individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted, four-weeks apart, with adults living in households in the Liverpool City Region. At the follow-up interview, participants were given the option of using photo-elicitation to guide the discussion. Reflexive thematic analysis was employed to conceptualise themes. The qualitative analysis was underpinned with symbolic interactionism. Twenty-seven participants (13:14 males:females, and 20 with a vulnerable risk factor to COVID-19) completed a baseline interview, and 15 of these completed a follow-up interview four-weeks later. Following thematic analysis, two overarching themes were conceptualised, with subthemes discussed: theme 1) Confusion and trust in the risk prevention guidance; and theme 2) Navigating risk: compliance and non-compliance with public health guidance. Participants developed their own understanding of COVID-19 risk perception through personal experience and comparison with others around them, irrespective of vulnerability status. COVID-19 guidance was not complied with as intended by the government, and at times even rejected due to lack of trust. The format in which future pandemic guidance is conveyed must be carefully considered, and take into account individuals' experiences that may lead to non-compliance. The findings from our study can inform future public health policy and interventions for COVID-19 and future pandemics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Social distancing restrictions to manage the COVID-19 pandemic were put in place from March 2020 in the United Kingdom (UK), with those classed as "highly clinically vulnerable" advised to shield entirely and remain at home. However, personal risk perception has been shown to comprise of various elements beyond those outlined in the national pandemic guidance. It is unclear whether those deemed COVID-19 vulnerable identified as high-risk to COVID-19 and thus complied with the relevant advice. The aim of this research is to explore the perception of risk in catching and spreading COVID-19, amongst individuals from individual households, and vulnerable groups in a region of the UK.
METHODS
Two individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted, four-weeks apart, with adults living in households in the Liverpool City Region. At the follow-up interview, participants were given the option of using photo-elicitation to guide the discussion. Reflexive thematic analysis was employed to conceptualise themes. The qualitative analysis was underpinned with symbolic interactionism.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven participants (13:14 males:females, and 20 with a vulnerable risk factor to COVID-19) completed a baseline interview, and 15 of these completed a follow-up interview four-weeks later. Following thematic analysis, two overarching themes were conceptualised, with subthemes discussed: theme 1) Confusion and trust in the risk prevention guidance; and theme 2) Navigating risk: compliance and non-compliance with public health guidance.
CONCLUSION
Participants developed their own understanding of COVID-19 risk perception through personal experience and comparison with others around them, irrespective of vulnerability status. COVID-19 guidance was not complied with as intended by the government, and at times even rejected due to lack of trust. The format in which future pandemic guidance is conveyed must be carefully considered, and take into account individuals' experiences that may lead to non-compliance. The findings from our study can inform future public health policy and interventions for COVID-19 and future pandemics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37020218
doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15439-8
pii: 10.1186/s12889-023-15439-8
pmc: PMC10074336
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
653Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Polit Psychol. 2021 Oct;42(5):881-898
pubmed: 33821063
Med Teach. 2022 Apr 7;:1-11
pubmed: 35389310
BMC Public Health. 2021 Mar 5;21(1):449
pubmed: 33673833
BMC Public Health. 2021 Apr 28;21(1):812
pubmed: 33910534
Int J Qual Methods. 2020 Jan 1;19:
pubmed: 34566547
BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 4;11(1):e043577
pubmed: 33397669
Glob Transit. 2020;2:76-82
pubmed: 32835202
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021 Jan 18;76(2):e24-e29
pubmed: 32470120
Front Psychol. 2021 Mar 02;12:646558
pubmed: 33737899
J Hum Lact. 2019 May;35(2):220-222
pubmed: 30849272
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Jun;8(6):547-548
pubmed: 32401711
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 27;17(9):
pubmed: 32349253
Front Psychol. 2021 Mar 16;12:565845
pubmed: 33796038
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 29;17(9):
pubmed: 32365710
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2021 Jul 13;109:110236
pubmed: 33373680
Rev Econ Househ. 2021;19(1):123-144
pubmed: 33456425
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021 Jun 3;17(6):1612-1621
pubmed: 33242386
Res Involv Engagem. 2017 Aug 2;3:13
pubmed: 29062538
PLoS One. 2021 Oct 28;16(10):e0258781
pubmed: 34710125
Int J Surg. 2020 Apr;76:71-76
pubmed: 32112977
J Public Health (Oxf). 2021 Sep 22;43(3):472-478
pubmed: 33429436
Lancet Planet Health. 2021 Mar;5(3):e135-e144
pubmed: 33524310
R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Sep 16;7(9):200742
pubmed: 33047037
Health Educ Res. 2011 Oct;26(5):761-9
pubmed: 21613380
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Am J Prev Med. 2020 Aug;59(2):157-167
pubmed: 32576418
Public Health. 2020 Jun;183:110-111
pubmed: 32502699
PLoS One. 2022 Jul 13;17(7):e0266153
pubmed: 35830445
Polit Psychol. 2021 Oct;42(5):747-766
pubmed: 34230725