Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Center for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Sciences (C-TNBS), University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Feb 11;19(4):2041. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19042041.
Since introducing the first non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to decelerate the spread of the virus, European governments have highlighted the role of "solidarity". However, the role and levels of solidarity, especially during the past lockdowns, is uncertain. The present study thus explores the levels, the role, and the distribution of received and demonstrated interpersonal solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic. This pooled cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2020 to March 2021 in Germany, including 19,977 participants. Levels of solidarity between the first and the second lockdowns in Germany were compared, possible predictors were examined, and three clusters were defined to unveil distributional patterns of solidarity reception and/or demonstration. To compare solidarity levels between the first and the second lockdowns in Germany, a dummy-coded lockdown variable was introduced and regressed on the two solidarity items. To identify predictors of received and demonstrated solidarity, two multiple linear regression models were computed, testing several demographic and psychological factors. For further exploratory analyses, clusters of "helpers", "non-helpers", and "help-receivers and helpers" were computed based on a k-means cluster analysis. Results revealed a lower level of solidarity during the second lockdown compared with the first one. Demonstrated solidarity was positively predicted by adherent safety behavior to avoid COVID-19 infection and by middle age, and negatively by depression symptoms, male gender, and high age. Received solidarity was positively predicted by higher age, by both adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior in avoidance of COVID-19 infection, and by lower educational level. "Helpers" reported little received solidarity but demonstrated high solidarity, "non-helpers" showed both little demonstrated and received solidarity, and "help-receivers and helpers" showed middle-high received and demonstrated solidarity. The three clusters differed the most regarding the variables of age, adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior, fear of COVID-19, subjective risk perceptions regarding contraction of COVID-19 and the respective consequences, and trust in governmental interventions in response to COVID-19. The decrease in interpersonal solidarity over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as its predictors, should be considered regarding prospective impositions. Furthermore, as depressive symptoms were identified to negatively predict interpersonal solidarity, the adequate provision of mental health services, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, becomes even more important.
自引入减缓病毒传播的首批非药物干预措施以来,欧洲各国政府强调了“团结”的作用。然而,团结的作用和水平,尤其是在过去的封锁期间,尚不确定。因此,本研究探讨了 COVID-19 大流行期间人际团结的程度、作用和接受与表现的分布情况。本研究采用横断面研究,于 2020 年 3 月至 2021 年 3 月在德国进行,共纳入 19977 名参与者。比较了德国第一波和第二波封锁期间的团结水平,考察了可能的预测因素,并定义了三个聚类,以揭示团结接受和/或表现的分布模式。为了比较德国第一波和第二波封锁期间的团结水平,引入了一个虚拟变量来表示封锁,并将其回归到两个团结项目上。为了识别团结的接受和表现的预测因素,计算了两个多元线性回归模型,测试了几个人口统计学和心理学因素。为了进一步进行探索性分析,根据 k-均值聚类分析计算了“帮助者”、“非帮助者”和“帮助接受者和帮助者”的聚类。结果显示,与第一波封锁相比,第二波封锁期间的团结水平较低。表现出的团结与遵守安全行为以避免 COVID-19 感染以及中年呈正相关,与抑郁症状、男性性别和高龄呈负相关。接受的团结与高龄、避免 COVID-19 感染的遵守和功能失调的安全行为以及较低的教育水平呈正相关。“帮助者”报告接受的团结很少,但表现出高度的团结,“非帮助者”表现出两者都很少,“帮助接受者和帮助者”表现出中高水平的接受和表现的团结。三个聚类在年龄、遵守和功能失调的安全行为、对 COVID-19 的恐惧、对感染 COVID-19 及其各自后果的主观风险认知以及对政府应对 COVID-19 干预措施的信任等变量方面差异最大。应考虑 COVID-19 大流行过程中人际团结的减少及其预测因素,以便进行未来的干预。此外,由于抑郁症状被确定为负性预测人际团结,因此在 COVID-19 大流行期间,提供适当的心理健康服务变得更加重要。