Search

BackgroundCOVID-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.”MethodsWe 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%).ResultsCOVID-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.ConclusionsThis 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.

The aim of this scoping review is to highlight what is known about the relationship between exposure to certain characteristics of persuasive messages and mental well-being of their receivers. Keeping mental well-being of the recipients in mind is especially important in the context of health communication (take for instance the recent Covid-19 crisis) or risk communication which plays a critical role in prevention, adherence to the guidelines, and reduction of anxiety and fear. But what happens when precisely the way we communicate becomes a source or further anxiety and fear? And how can we communicate better with vulnerable populations? This scoping review aims to synthesize what is known about the relationship between exposure to certain characteristics of persuasive messages (defined as persuasive and informational messages) and mental well-being of message receivers. Furthermore, it aims to summarize what is known about the role of prior mental well-being or mental health state in processing of persuasive messages across different literature pockets. The findings from this scoping review will guide further interview and experimental studies on the topic. More information about the project can be found in the attached document.

This project investigates physical distancing in (emerging) adults, the role of (social) media, and the effect on mental well-being.

Additional file 5. Smoking status and evaluation of progress.

Additional file 1. Descriptive statistics app users and app usage.

Additional file 3. Interview protocols.

Additional file 4. Background information interview participants.

Additional file 2. Intervention “De StopCoach”.