• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

公众对德国 COVID-19 封锁退出策略的偏好——一项离散选择实验。

Public Preferences for Exit Strategies From COVID-19 Lockdown in Germany-A Discrete Choice Experiment.

机构信息

Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Hannover, Germany.

出版信息

Int J Public Health. 2021 Mar 19;66:591027. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2021.591027. eCollection 2021.

DOI:10.3389/ijph.2021.591027
PMID:34744560
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8565260/
Abstract

To decrease the rapid growth of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany, a stepped lockdown was conducted. Acceptance and compliance regarding entering and exiting lockdown measures are key for their success. The aim of the present study was to analyse the population's preferences for exiting lockdown measures. To evaluate population's preferences and identify trade-offs between different exit strategies, a discrete choice experiment was conducted on 28-29 April (n = 1,020). Overall, six attributes and 16 choice sets (fractional-factorial design) without an opt-out were chosen. Conditional logit and latent class models were conducted. Most attributes proved to be significant. Two attributes dominated all others: Avoiding a mandatory tracing app, and providing sufficient intensive care capacities. Preventing a high long-term unemployment rate and avoiding the isolation of persons aged 70+, were relevant, though utilities were comparatively lower. We identified subgroups (elderly persons and persons with school children) with different utilities, which indicates specific attributes affecting them dissimilarly. The population prefers cautious re-opening strategies and is at least sceptical about the adoption of severe protection measures. Government should balance interests between subgroups.

摘要

为了减缓德国 SARS-CoV-2 的快速增长,德国采取了分阶段封锁措施。对于封锁措施的进入和退出,民众的接受度和配合度是成功的关键。本研究旨在分析民众对退出封锁措施的偏好。为了评估民众的偏好,并确定不同退出策略之间的权衡取舍,我们于 2020 年 4 月 28 日至 29 日(n=1020)进行了一项离散选择实验。总体而言,我们选择了六个属性和 16 个选择集(分数阶设计),没有退出选项。我们进行了条件逻辑分析和潜在类别模型分析。大多数属性被证明是显著的。两个属性主导了所有其他属性:避免强制性的追踪应用程序和提供足够的重症监护能力。预防高失业率和避免隔离 70 岁以上的人也很重要,尽管效用相对较低。我们确定了具有不同效用的亚组(老年人和有学龄儿童的人),这表明特定属性对他们的影响不同。民众更喜欢谨慎的重新开放策略,对采用严格的保护措施至少持怀疑态度。政府应在各利益群体之间平衡利益。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2035/8565260/15f72e0c9fca/ijph-66-591027-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2035/8565260/7ee005abb87f/ijph-66-591027-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2035/8565260/a243f02ac929/ijph-66-591027-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2035/8565260/15f72e0c9fca/ijph-66-591027-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2035/8565260/7ee005abb87f/ijph-66-591027-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2035/8565260/a243f02ac929/ijph-66-591027-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2035/8565260/15f72e0c9fca/ijph-66-591027-g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Public Preferences for Exit Strategies From COVID-19 Lockdown in Germany-A Discrete Choice Experiment.公众对德国 COVID-19 封锁退出策略的偏好——一项离散选择实验。
Int J Public Health. 2021 Mar 19;66:591027. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2021.591027. eCollection 2021.
2
Exploring the Trade-Off Between Economic and Health Outcomes During a Pandemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lockdown Policies in Australia.探索大流行期间经济与健康结果之间的权衡:澳大利亚封锁政策的离散选择实验
Patient. 2021 May;14(3):359-371. doi: 10.1007/s40271-021-00503-5. Epub 2021 Mar 11.
3
Population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: trade-offs among public health, individual rights, and economics.公众对控制 SARS-CoV-2 大流行的非药物干预措施的偏好:公共卫生、个人权利和经济学之间的权衡。
Eur J Health Econ. 2022 Dec;23(9):1483-1496. doi: 10.1007/s10198-022-01438-w. Epub 2022 Feb 9.
4
Understanding public preferences and trade-offs for government responses during a pandemic: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment in the UK.了解公众在大流行期间对政府应对措施的偏好和权衡:在英国进行离散选择实验的方案。
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 20;10(11):e043477. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043477.
5
Preferences for COVID-19 epidemic control measures among French adults: a discrete choice experiment.法国成年人对 COVID-19 疫情防控措施的偏好:一项离散选择实验。
Eur J Health Econ. 2023 Feb;24(1):81-98. doi: 10.1007/s10198-022-01454-w. Epub 2022 Mar 19.
6
Patients' Preferences for Artificial Intelligence Applications Versus Clinicians in Disease Diagnosis During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in China: Discrete Choice Experiment.中国 SARS-CoV-2 大流行期间,患者对人工智能应用与临床医生在疾病诊断中的偏好:离散选择实验。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Feb 23;23(2):e22841. doi: 10.2196/22841.
7
Public preferences for primary care provision in Germany - a discrete choice experiment.德国初级保健服务提供的公众偏好 - 离散选择实验。
BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Jun 11;20(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-0967-y.
8
Diabolical dilemmas of COVID-19: An empirical study into Dutch society's trade-offs between health impacts and other effects of the lockdown.新冠疫情的险恶困境:对荷兰社会在封锁的健康影响和其他影响之间权衡取舍的实证研究。
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 16;15(9):e0238683. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238683. eCollection 2020.
9
Stability of Stated Preferences: Vaccine Priority Setting before and during the First COVID-19 Lockdown.表述偏好的稳定性:新冠疫情首轮封锁前后的疫苗优先接种排序
Med Decis Making. 2023 May;43(4):521-529. doi: 10.1177/0272989X221150185. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
10
The Relative Importance of Vulnerability and Efficiency in COVID-19 Contact Tracing Programmes: A Discrete Choice Experiment.新冠病毒接触者追踪计划中脆弱性和效率的相对重要性:一项离散选择实验。
Int J Public Health. 2022 Jul 20;67:1604958. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2022.1604958. eCollection 2022.

引用本文的文献

1
The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.健康经济学中离散选择实验的发展态势:一项系统综述
Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 May 21. doi: 10.1007/s40273-025-01495-y.
2
Preferences of community-dwelling older adults with multimorbidity for digital empowerment interventions: Protocol for a discrete choice experiment study.患有多种疾病的社区老年人对数字赋权干预措施的偏好:一项离散选择实验研究的方案
Digit Health. 2025 Feb 25;11:20552076251319662. doi: 10.1177/20552076251319662. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
3
Influence parental- and child-related factors on the acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 test methods in schools and daycare facilities.

本文引用的文献

1
Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the number of new infections with COVID-19 during the first epidemic wave.估算非药物干预措施对 COVID-19 首例疫情期间新增感染人数的影响。
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 2;16(6):e0252827. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252827. eCollection 2021.
2
Behaviours and attitudes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from a cross-national Facebook survey.应对新冠疫情的行为与态度:一项跨国脸书调查的见解
EPJ Data Sci. 2021;10(1):17. doi: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-021-00270-1. Epub 2021 Apr 14.
3
COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: Predicted Uptake in the Netherlands Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment.
探讨父母和儿童相关因素对学校和日托机构接受 SARS-CoV-2 检测方法的影响。
Front Public Health. 2024 Jul 18;12:1264019. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1264019. eCollection 2024.
4
Preferences for the Societal Impacts of a Pandemic when it Transitions into an Endemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment.大流行转变为地方病时对其社会影响的偏好:一项离散选择实验
Patient. 2025 Jan;18(1):49-63. doi: 10.1007/s40271-024-00701-x. Epub 2024 Jul 9.
5
The public's considerations about implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions to manage a novel COVID-19 epidemic.公众对于实施非药物干预措施来应对新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情的考量。
Heliyon. 2024 Apr 26;10(9):e30390. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30390. eCollection 2024 May 15.
6
Preferences for public engagement in decision-making regarding four COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions in the Netherlands: A survey study.公众对荷兰四项 COVID-19 非药物干预措施决策的参与偏好:一项调查研究。
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 5;18(10):e0292119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292119. eCollection 2023.
7
Voices of society: the emergence of civil-society practices aiming to engage in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands.社会声音:荷兰旨在参与新冠疫情管理的公民社会实践的出现。
BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Aug;8(8). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012875.
8
Priority setting in the German healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment.德国医疗体系中的优先事项设定:基于离散选择实验的结果。
Int J Health Econ Manag. 2023 Sep;23(3):411-431. doi: 10.1007/s10754-023-09347-y. Epub 2023 May 15.
9
Public Preferences for Introducing a COVID-19 Certificate: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Netherlands.公众对引入 COVID-19 证书的偏好:荷兰的离散选择实验。
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023 Jul;21(4):603-614. doi: 10.1007/s40258-023-00808-6. Epub 2023 May 8.
10
Service-level barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use: protocol for a scoping review.服务层面上,获取治疗酒精使用障碍和问题性饮酒服务的障碍因素和促进因素:系统评价方案。
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 21;12(11):e064578. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064578.
COVID-19 接触者追踪应用程序:基于离散选择实验预测荷兰的使用率。
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Oct 9;8(10):e20741. doi: 10.2196/20741.
4
Acceptability of App-Based Contact Tracing for COVID-19: Cross-Country Survey Study.基于应用程序的 COVID-19 接触者追踪的可接受性:跨国调查研究。
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Aug 28;8(8):e19857. doi: 10.2196/19857.
5
Coronavirus-Related Health Literacy: A Cross-Sectional Study in Adults during the COVID-19 Infodemic in Germany.新冠病毒相关健康素养:德国 COVID-19 信息疫情期间成年人的横断面研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 30;17(15):5503. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155503.
6
Comparison of Reported Deaths From COVID-19 and Increase in Total Mortality in Italy.意大利报告的 COVID-19 死亡人数与总死亡率上升的比较。
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Sep 1;180(9):1250-1252. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2543.
7
[Contact-Tracing Apps in Contact Tracing of COVID-19].[新冠疫情接触者追踪中的接触者追踪应用程序]
Gesundheitswesen. 2020 Sep;82(8-09):664-669. doi: 10.1055/a-1195-2474. Epub 2020 Jul 21.
8
Outcomes from intensive care in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.COVID-19 患者重症监护的结局:观察性研究的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Anaesthesia. 2020 Oct;75(10):1340-1349. doi: 10.1111/anae.15201. Epub 2020 Jul 15.
9
Ten considerations for effectively managing the COVID-19 transition.有效管理 COVID-19 过渡期的十个注意事项。
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Jul;4(7):677-687. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0906-x. Epub 2020 Jun 24.
10
Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe.估算非药物干预措施对欧洲 COVID-19 疫情的影响。
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7820):257-261. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7. Epub 2020 Jun 8.