Search

The Covid-19 pandemic has challenged the resilience of care organisations (and those dependent on them), especially when services are stopped or restricted. This study focuses on the experiences of care organisations that offer services to individuals in highly precarious situations in 10 European countries. It is based on 32 qualitative interviews and three workshops with managers and staff. The four key types of organisations reviewed largely had the same adaptation patterns in all countries. The most drastic changes were experienced by day centres, which had to suspend or digitise services, whereas night shelters and soup kitchens had to reorganise broadly their work; residential facilities were minimally affected. Given the drastic surge in demand for services, reliance on an overburdened (volunteer) workforce, and a lack of crisis plans, the care organisations with long-term trust networks with clients and intra-organisational cooperation adapted easier. The outcomes were worse for new clients, migrants, psychologically vulnerable people, and those with limited communicative abilities., (© 2021 The Authors Disasters © 2021 Overseas Development Institute.)

Homeless and materially disadvantaged people are considered particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. So far, there is no systematic knowledge about how the homeless and materially disadvantaged people perceive the risks of COVID-19 and what factors influence the development of sceptical views and underestimation of dangers posed by the virus. The aim of our study is therefore to: (1) Explore COVID-19 risk perception of socially marginalised individuals, focusing on their assessment of the probability of getting infected by the virus and the perceived harmful consequences of the disease; and (2) examine the factors influencing COVID-19 risk beliefs of these individuals. We use cross-sectional survey data with 273 participants from eight countries and data from 32 interviews and five workshops with managers and staff of social care organisations in ten European countries. Our results indicate that among survey participants, 49% can be labelled COVID-19 sceptics with regard to probability of getting infected, and 38% with regard to harmful consequences of the disease. We find that COVID-19 scepticism is related to low levels of all types of social capital, low trust in information from authorities and being a minority. However, the most important predictor is the respondents' general lack of concern about health risks. Additionally, the qualitative data indicates the multifaceted nature of COVID-19 scepticism, as it may relate to the origins of COVID-19, the probability of infection, its consequences and protective measures, among others. Improved understanding about factors influencing COVID-19 scepticism in these groups contributes to a better understanding of the information disorder during crises, and the ways in which this could be managed through policies against marginalisation, including in disaster risk reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 propelled the creation, transmission, and consumption of false information – unverified claims, misleading statements, false rumours, conspiracy theories, and so on – all around the world. When various official or unofficial sources issue erroneous, misleading or contradicting information during a crisis, people who are exposed to this may behave in ways that cause harm to the health and well-being of themselves or others, e.g., by not taking appropriate risk reducing measures or blaming or harassing vulnerable groups. To work towards a typology of informational content that may increase people's vulnerability in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, we explored 98 instances of potentially harmful information that spread in six European countries – France, Italy, Norway, Finland, Lithuania, and Estonia – between March and May 2020. We suggest that during the pandemic, exposure to harmful information may have made people more vulnerable in six ways: (1) by discouraging appropriate protective actions against catching/spreading the virus, (2) by promoting the use of false (or harmful) remedies against the virus, (3) by misrepresenting the transmission mechanisms of the virus, (4) by downplaying the risks related to the pandemic, (5) by tricking people into buying fake protection against the virus or into revealing their confidential information, and (6) by victimising the alleged spreaders of the virus by harassment/hate speech. The proposed typology can be used to guide the development of risk communication plans to address each of these information-related vulnerabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to examine the socioeconomic outcomes of COVID-19 for socially marginalised people who are clients of social care organisations (e.g. people experiencing homelessness), and the factors influencing these outcomes. We tested the role of individual and socio-structural variables in determining socioeconomic outcomes based on a cross-sectional survey with 273 participants from eight European countries and 32 interviews and five workshops with managers and staff of social care organisations in ten European countries. 39% of the respondents agreed that the pandemic has had a negative effect on their income and access to shelter and food. The most common negative socio-economic outcome of the pandemic was loss of work (65% of respondents). According to multivariate regression analysis, variables such as being of a young age, being an immigrant/asylum seeker or residing in the country without documentation, living in your own home, and having (in)formal paid work as the main source of income are related to negative socio-economic outcomes following the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors such as individual psychological resilience and receiving social benefits as the main source of income tend to "protect" respondents from negative impacts. Qualitative results indicate that care organisations have been an important source of economic and psycho-social support, particularly significant in times of a huge surge in demand for services during the long-term crises of pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social capital has become a major factor for analysing vulnerabilities and resilience in the context of disaster studies in recent years. Usually, it is studied along its three forms of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital, and it is often framed as a static characteristic that a person either has at his or her disposal or not. Based on the results of case studies conducted in Germany and Estonia focusing on four different crises (floods in Germany; long-term disruption of electricity due to a major storm in Estonia; a cyber-attack in Estonia; as well as the COVID-19 pandemic in both countries) we claim that this description and analysis of social capital does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of all the challenges disaster management has to deal with to decrease vulnerabilities and increase resilience. Using qualitative content analysis, we present a heuristic framework which not only asks whether bonding, bridging, and linking social capital is available to individuals, but also whether social capital is accessible and activatable when responding to or recovering from a disaster. In doing so, the paper helps to improve the overall usability of official or unofficial social support to cope with crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although self-imposed social isolation is an important way of reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection, previous research indicates that this behaviour varies substantially between different groups and individuals. Socially marginalized people are generally less involved in protective health behaviours, but there are few studies of their COVID-19 protective behaviours. The aims of the paper are therefore to: 1) compare self-imposed social isolation to avoid COVID-19 among socially marginalized groups, and to 2) examine factors influencing this, focusing especially on the role of social capital, risk awareness and sources of information about COVID-19. The study is based on survey data (N = 173) from people who are clients of social care organisations in Estonia, Norway, Hungary and Portugal. The sample involves clients living: a) in their homes, b) in facilities, and c) on the street or under temporary arrangements. Results indicate that the level of social isolation among the marginalized groups is comparable to that of the general population in previous studies. As hypothesized, we find that respondents living on the street or under temporary arrangements engage in less self-imposed social isolation than e.g. the respondents living in their homes. We also find lower levels of risk awareness, social capital and trust in authorities' information about COVID-19 among people living on the street or under temporary arrangements. Only linking social capital and trust in authorities' information was significantly related to respondents' social isolation, and not worry for COVID-19 infection. Thus, it seems that respondents largely self-isolated because of "duty" and not worry for infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]