National Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Athena Institute, Faculty of Science, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 5;18(10):e0292119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292119. eCollection 2023.
Worldwide, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were implemented during the COVID-19 crisis, which heavily impacted the daily lives of citizens. This study considers public perspectives on whether and how public engagement (PE) can contribute to future decision-making about NPIs.
An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of the public in the Netherlands from 27 October to 9 November 2021. Perceptions and preferences about PE in decision-making on NPIs to control COVID-19 were collected. Preferences regarding four NPIs were studied: Nightly curfew (NC); Digital Covid Certificate (DCC); Closure of elementary schools and daycares (CED); and physical distancing (1.5M). Engagement was surveyed based on the five participation modes of the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation, namely inform, consult, advice, collaborate and empower.
Of the 4981 respondents, 25% expressed a desire to engage in decision-making, as they thought engagement could improve their understanding and the quality of NPIs, as well as increase their trust in the government. Especially for the NPIs DCC and NC, respondents found it valuable to engage and provide their perspective on trade-offs in values (e.g. opening up society versus division in society by vaccination status). Respondents agreed that the main responsibility in decision-making should stay with experts and policy-makers. 50% of respondents did not want to engage, as they felt no need to engage or considered themselves insufficiently knowledgeable. Inform was deemed the most preferred mode of engagement, and empower the least preferred mode of engagement.
We reveal large variations in public preferences regarding engagement in NPI decision-making. With 25% of respondents expressing an explicit desire to engage, and considering the benefit of PE in other areas of (public) health, opportunities for PE in NPI decision-making might have been overlooked during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results provide guidance into when and how to execute PE in future outbreaks.
在 COVID-19 危机期间，全球范围内实施了非药物干预（NPIs），这对公民的日常生活产生了重大影响。本研究考虑了公众对公共参与（PE）是否以及如何有助于未来对 NPIs 决策的看法。
2021 年 10 月 27 日至 11 月 9 日，在荷兰对代表性公众样本进行了在线调查。收集了对控制 COVID-19 的 NPIs 决策中 PE 的看法和偏好。研究了四种 NPIs：夜间宵禁（NC）；数字 COVID 证书（DCC）；关闭小学和日托（CED）；和物理距离（1.5M）。根据 IAP2 公众参与光谱的五种参与模式（即告知、咨询、建议、合作和授权）对参与情况进行了调查。
在 4981 名受访者中，25%的人表示希望参与决策，因为他们认为参与可以提高他们对 NPIs 的理解和质量，并增加他们对政府的信任。特别是对于 DCC 和 NC 等 NPI，受访者认为参与并就价值观的权衡提供自己的观点很有价值（例如，通过疫苗接种状况开放社会与社会分裂）。受访者一致认为，决策的主要责任应由专家和政策制定者承担。50%的受访者不想参与，因为他们觉得没有必要参与，或者认为自己知识不够。告知被认为是最受欢迎的参与模式，授权是最不受欢迎的参与模式。
我们揭示了公众对 NPI 决策中参与的偏好存在很大差异。有 25%的受访者明确表示希望参与，并且考虑到 PE 在（公共）卫生其他领域的益处，在 COVID-19 大流行期间，可能忽视了在 NPI 决策中进行 PE 的机会。我们的研究结果为未来疫情期间何时以及如何执行 PE 提供了指导。
