Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Institute of Philosophy and Multidisciplinary Center for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
BMC Public Health. 2024 Jan 2;24(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-17521-7.
While solidarity practices were important in mitigating the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, their limits became evident as the pandemic progressed. Taking a longitudinal approach, this study analyses German residents' changing perceptions of solidarity practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and examines potential reasons for these changes.
Adults living in Germany were interviewed in April 2020 (n = 46), October 2020 (n = 43) and October 2021 (n = 40) as part of the SolPan Research Commons, a large-scale, international, qualitative, longitudinal study uniquely situated in a major global public health crisis. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.
While solidarity practices were prominently discussed and positively evaluated in April 2020, this initial enthusiasm waned in October 2020 and October 2021. Yet, participants still perceived solidarity as important for managing the pandemic and called for institutionalized forms of solidarity in October 2020 and October 2021. Reasons for these changing perceptions of solidarity included (i) increasing personal and societal costs to act in solidarity, (ii) COVID-19 policies hindering solidarity practices, and (iii) a perceived lack of reciprocity as participants felt that solidarity practices from the state were not matching their individual efforts.
Maintaining solidarity contributes to maximizing public health during a pandemic. Institutionalized forms of solidarity to support those most in need contribute to perceived reciprocity among individuals, which might increase their motivation to act in solidarity. Thus, rather than calling for individual solidarity during times of crisis, authorities should consider implementing sustaining solidarity-based social support systems that go beyond immediate crisis management.
虽然团结实践在减轻 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行方面发挥了重要作用,但随着大流行的发展,其局限性变得明显。本研究采用纵向方法,分析了德国居民在 COVID-19 大流行期间对团结实践的看法变化,并探讨了这些变化的潜在原因。
作为大型国际定性纵向研究 SolPan 研究共同体的一部分,于 2020 年 4 月(n=46)、2020 年 10 月(n=43)和 2021 年 10 月(n=40)对居住在德国的成年人进行了访谈。访谈采用定性内容分析进行分析。
虽然团结实践在 2020 年 4 月被突出讨论并得到积极评价,但这种最初的热情在 2020 年 10 月和 2021 年 10 月减弱了。然而,参与者仍然认为团结在管理大流行方面很重要,并在 2020 年 10 月和 2021 年 10 月呼吁制度化的团结形式。这些团结观念变化的原因包括:(i)团结行为对个人和社会的成本增加;(ii)COVID-19 政策阻碍团结实践;(iii)参与者认为国家的团结实践与其个人努力不匹配,因此感觉缺乏互惠性。
在大流行期间保持团结有助于最大限度地提高公共卫生。支持最需要帮助的人的制度化团结形式有助于在个人之间产生互惠感,这可能会增加他们团结行动的动机。因此,当局不应在危机时期呼吁个人团结,而应考虑实施超越危机管理的维持团结的社会支持系统。