Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Department of Social, Health and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Front Public Health. 2023 Mar 3;11:1079992. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1079992. eCollection 2023.
COVID-19 mitigation measures intend to protect public health, but their adverse psychological, social, and economic effects weaken public support. Less favorable trade-offs may especially weaken support for more restrictive measures. Support for mitigation measures may also differ between population subgroups who experience different benefits and costs, and decrease over time, a phenomenon termed "pandemic fatigue."
We examined self-reported support for COVID-19 mitigation measures in the Netherlands over 12 consecutives waves of data collection between April 2020 and May 2021 in an open population cohort study. Participants were recruited through community panels of the 25 regional public health services, and through links to the online surveys advertised on social media. The 54,010 unique participants in the cohort study on average participated in 4 waves of data collection. Most participants were female (65%), middle-aged [57% (40-69 years)], highly educated (57%), not living alone (84%), residing in an urban area (60%), and born in the Netherlands (95%).
COVID-19 mitigation measures implemented in the Netherlands remained generally well-supported over time [all scores >3 on 5-point scale ranging 1 (low)-5 (high)]. During the whole period studied, support was highest for personal hygiene measures, quarantine and wearing face masks, high but somewhat lower for not shaking hands, testing and self-isolation, and restricting social contacts, and lowest for limiting visitors at home, and not traveling abroad. Women and higher educated people were more supportive of some mitigation measures than men and lower educated people. Older people were more supportive of more restrictive measures than younger people, and support for more socially restrictive measures decreased most over time in higher educated people or in younger people.
This study found no support for pandemic fatigue in terms of a gradual decline in support for all mitigation measures in the first year of the pandemic. Rather, findings suggest that support for mitigation measures reflects a balancing of benefits and cost, which may change over time, and differ between measures and population subgroups.
为保护公众健康,新冠疫情缓解措施应运而生,但这些措施会带来不利的心理、社会和经济影响,从而削弱公众的支持力度。如果这些缓解措施的弊端越发明显,可能会削弱公众对更严格措施的支持。不同群体对缓解措施的支持力度也可能存在差异,因为他们所承受的利弊各不相同。此外,公众对缓解措施的支持力度还会随时间推移而逐渐减弱,这一现象被称为“新冠疲劳”。
我们对荷兰的新冠缓解措施的支持情况进行了研究。该研究采用开放队列研究设计,在 2020 年 4 月至 2021 年 5 月期间,通过社区公共卫生服务部门的参与者招募,以及社交媒体上的在线调查链接,共收集了 12 个连续波次的数据。该队列研究共招募了 54010 名参与者,平均每人参与了 4 波次的数据收集。参与者中,女性占 65%,年龄在 57%(40-69 岁),受教育程度较高(57%),独居比例较低(84%),居住在城市(60%),荷兰本地出生(95%)。
研究发现,荷兰的新冠缓解措施在实施期间一直得到广泛支持(所有措施的评分均高于 5 分制的 3 分)。在整个研究期间,个人卫生措施、隔离和戴口罩得到了最高支持,其次是不握手、检测和自我隔离,限制社交接触也得到了较高支持,而限制访客和出国旅行的支持率最低。与男性和受教育程度较低的人相比,女性和受教育程度较高的人对一些缓解措施的支持度更高。与年轻人相比,老年人对更严格的措施更为支持,而在受教育程度较高的人群或年轻人中,对更具社会限制的措施的支持度随着时间的推移下降得更为明显。
本研究并未发现“新冠疲劳”的迹象,即公众对所有缓解措施的支持力度在疫情爆发的第一年并未出现逐渐下降的趋势。相反,研究结果表明,公众对缓解措施的支持力度反映了对利弊的权衡,这种权衡可能会随时间发生变化,并且在不同措施和人群中存在差异。