Search

Background: The effectiveness of crisis response can be influenced by various structural, cultural, and functional aspects within a social system. This study uses a configurational approach to identify combinations of sociopolitical conditions that lead to a high case fatality rate (CFR) of COVID-19 in OECD countries., Methods: A Fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is conducted on a sample of 38 OECD countries. The outcome to be explained is high COVID-19 CFR. The five potentially causal conditions are level of democracy, state capacity, trust in government, health expenditure per capita, and the median age of population. A comprehensive QCA robustness test protocol is applied, which includes sensitivity ranges, fit-oriented robustness, and case-oriented robustness tests., Results: None of the causal conditions in both the presence and negation form were found to be necessary for high or low levels of COVID-19 CFR. Two different combinations of sociopolitical conditions were usually sufficient for the occurrence of a high CFR of COVID-19 in OECD countries. Low state capacity and low trust in government are part of both recipes. The entire solution formula covers 84 percent of the outcome.  Some countries have been identified as contradictory cases. The explanations for their COVID-19 CFR require more in-depth case studies., Conclusions: From a governance perspective, the weakness of government in effectively implementing policies, and the citizens' lack of confidence in their government, combined with other structural conditions, serve as barriers to mounting an effective response to COVID-19. These findings can support the idea that the effects of social determinants of COVID-19 outcomes are interconnected and reinforcing., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Adherence to COVID-19 preventative guidelines may be influenced by a variety of factors at the individual, societal, and institutional levels. The current study sought to investigate the social factors of adherence to those preventive measures from the perspective of health professionals., Methods: In October 2020, we performed qualitative research in Tehran, Iran, using the directed content analysis method. For the preparation of our interview guide and data analysis, we employed the WHO conceptual framework of socioeconomic determinants of health. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 health professionals and policymakers who were chosen using a purposive sampling approach. MAXQDA-18 software was used to analyze the data. The Goba and Lincoln criteria were used to assess the quality of the results., Results: There are 23 subcategories and 9 categories, which include socio-economic and political context (unstable macroeconomic environment, poor management of the pandemic, media and knowledge transfer), cultural and social values (fatalism, cultural norms, value conflicts, social customs), socio-economic positions (livelihood conditions), social capital (social cohesion, low trust), living conditions (housing conditions), occupational conditions (precarious employment), individual characteristics (demographic characteristics, personality traits, COVID-19 knowledge, and attitude), psycho-social factors (normalization of the disease, social pressure, and stigma), and health system leadership (health system problems, not taking evidence-based decisions, non-comprehensive preventive guidelines, non-operational guidelines, inadequate executive committee) were obtained., Conclusion: To limit the new COVID-19 transmission, people must be encouraged to follow COVID-19 prevention instructions. Improving adherence to COVID-19 preventive guidelines necessitates dealing with the complexities of responding to social determinants of those guidelines. Increasing public health literacy and knowledge of COVID-19, informing people about the consequences of social interactions and cultural customs in the spread of COVID-19, strengthening regulatory lockdown laws, improving guarantees for adhering to preventive guidelines, providing easy access to preventive supplies, and strengthening financial support for households with precarious employment are all important.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is a global health problem. It is necessary to provide evidence on its unprecedented psychological effects to develop effective psychological interventions. The current study aims to determine the anxiety severity level, coping strategies, and influencing factors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic among people aged 15 years and above in Gonabad, Iran. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey via online questionnaires between February and March 2020. We evaluated the anxiety severity levels and coping strategies using the Corona Disease Anxiety Scale (CDAS) and Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations--Short Form (CISS-SF), respectively. Multinomial and ordinal logistic regression models were used to identify the predictors of coping strategies and anxiety. Results: Totally, 500 people completed the questionnaires (response rate: 73%). Of them, 53.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 48.9%- 57.8%) suffered moderate to severe levels of anxiety. More than half of the respondents (52.0%; 95% CI: 47.5%-56.4%) utilized emotional-based or avoidant coping strategies. People with no academic education (odds ratio [OR]: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.41-3.31) and without physical exercise (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.22-3.33) preferred emotional-based coping instead of problem-based coping strategy. Female gender (OR: 1.60, 95%, CI: 1.13-2.28), underlying medical conditions (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.65-3.87), and emotional-based coping (OR: 4.06, 95% CI: 2.76-5.99) were associated with higher severity levels of anxiety. Conclusion: The severity of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic was significant among participants. Further attention is needed to enhance the mental health of the vulnerable population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings also identified some factors related to the severity level of anxiety related to COVID-19 that could help formulate better psychological interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]