Search

The COVID-19 pandemic considerably impacted the lives of European citizens. This study aims to provide a nuanced picture of well-being patterns during the pandemic across Europe with a special focus on relevant socio-economic sub-groups. This observational study uses data from a repeated, cross-sectional, representative population survey with nine waves of data from seven European countries from April 2020 to January 2022. The analysis sample contains a total of 25,062 individuals providing 64,303 observations. Well-being is measured using the ICECAP-A, a multi-dimensional instrument for approximating capability well-being. Average levels of ICECAP-A index values and sub-dimension scores were calculated across waves, countries, and relevant sub-groups. In a fixed effects regression framework, associations of capability well-being with COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and the stringency of the imposed lockdown measures were estimated. Denmark, the Netherlands, and France experienced a U-shaped pattern in well-being (lowest point in winter 2020/21), while well-being in the UK, Germany, Portugal, and Italy followed an M-shape, with increases after April 2020, a drop in winter 2020, a recovery in the summer of 2021, and a decline in winter 2021. However, observed average well-being reductions were generally small. The largest declines were found in the well-being dimensions attachment and enjoyment and among individuals with a younger age, a financially unstable situation, and lower health. COVID-19 mortality was consistently negatively associated with capability well-being and its sub-dimensions, while stringency and incidence rate were generally not significantly associated with well-being. Further investigation is needed to understand underlying mechanisms of presented patterns., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Aim: This paper investigates the prevalence and determinants of three main states of people's willingness to be vaccinated (WTBV) against COVID-19 - willing, unwilling and hesitant - and the occurrence and predictors of shifts between these states over time. Understanding the dynamics of vaccine intentions is crucial for developing targeted campaigns to increase uptake and emergency response preparedness., Study Design: A panel survey consisting of 9 quarterly waves of data collected between April 2020 and January 2022. Baseline data included 24 952 adults from Germany, UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, and Italy recruited from online panels to construct census-matched nationally representative samples., Methods and Measures: Self-reported COVID-19 vaccine intention was the main outcome. Multinomial logit random effects models were used to analyze the relationships of interest. All results reported as relative risk ratios (RRR)., Results: Hesitancy to get vaccinated was the most unstable vaccine intention, with on average 42% of ever hesitant respondents remaining in this state through future waves, followed by the 'unwilling' (53%) and 'willing (82%). Following COVID-19 news, trust in information from the government, GPs and the WHO, risk preferences, risk perceptions, and confidence in vaccines (or lack thereof) predicted vaccination intention reversals. Risk preferences acted both as an impediment and as a facilitator for the vaccine uptake depending on the initial vaccine intention., Conclusions and Relevance: This study revealed the dynamic nature of COVID-19 vaccine intentions and its predictors in 7 European countries. The findings provide insights to policymakers for designing more effective communication strategies, particularly targeted at hesitant and unwilling to vaccinate population groups, to increase vaccine uptake for future public health emergencies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Iryna Sabat reports financial support, article publishing charges, and travel were provided by Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme of the European Union through the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement 721402. Tom Stargardt reports financial support was provided by German Research Foundation (DFG) under grant number 466310982. Tom Stargardt reports financial support, article publishing charges, and travel were provided by Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme of the European Union through the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement 721402. Jonas Schreyogg reports financial support was provided by German Research Foundation (DFG) under grant number 466310982. Jonas Schreyogg reports financial support was provided by Excellence Strategy by the German federal and state governments. Jonas Schreyogg reports financial support, article publishing charges, and travel were provided by Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme of the European Union through the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement 721402. Pedro Pita Barros reports financial support was provided by Nova School of Business and Economics Lisbon Chair BPI Fundacao La Caixa on Health Economics. Pedro Pita Barros reports financial support, article publishing charges, and travel were provided by Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme of the European Union through the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement 721402. Sebastian Neumann-Bohme reports financial support, article publishing charges, and travel were provided by Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme of the European Union through the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement 721402. Aleksandra Torbica reports financial support, article publishing charges, and travel were provided by Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme of the European Union through the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement 721402. Job van Exel reports financial support, article publishing charges, and travel were provided by Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme of the European Union through the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement 721402. Werner Brouwer reports financial support, article publishing charges, and travel were provided by Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme of the European Union through the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement 721402., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic in seven European countries and its association with selected sociodemographic as well as COVID-19-related variables., Methods: We used longitudinal data from nine quarterly waves collected between April 2020 and January 2022 (sample size per wave ranging from N = 7025 to 7300) of the European COvid Survey (ECOS), a representative survey of adults in Germany, United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Portugal and Italy. HRQoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L. The association of self-reported COVID-19 infection, perceived health risk from COVID-19, selected sociodemographic variables and the COVID-19 stringency index with HRQoL was analyzed by logistic and linear fixed effects regressions., Results: On average across all nine waves, the proportion of respondents reporting any problems in at least one of the EQ-5D dimensions ranged between 63.8% (Netherlands) and 71.0% (Denmark). Anxiety/depression was the most frequently affected EQ-5D dimension in four countries (Portugal: 52.0%; United Kingdom: 50.2%; Italy: 49.2%; France: 49.0%), whereas pain/discomfort ranked first in three countries (Denmark: 58.3%; Germany: 55.8%; Netherlands: 49.0%). On average across all nine waves, the EQ-VAS score ranged from 70.1 in the United Kingdom to 78.4 in Portugal. Moreover, the EQ-5D-5L index ranged from .82 in Denmark to .94 in France. The occurrence of COVID-19 infection, changes in the perceived risk to one's own health from COVID-19, the occurrence of income difficulties and an increase in the COVID-19 stringency index were associated with increased likelihood of problems in EQ-5D dimensions, reduced EQ-VAS score and reduced EQ-5D-5L index., Conclusions: Across seven European countries, we found large proportions of respondents reporting problems in HRQoL dimensions throughout the pandemic, especially for anxiety/depression. Various sociodemographic and COVID-19-related variables were associated with HRQoL in longitudinal analysis., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

In the Netherlands, about one-third of the adult population provides unpaid care. Providing informal caregiving can be very straining in normal times, but the impact of a public health crisis on caregivers is largely unknown. This study focuses on the question of how caregiver burden changed following the COVID-19 pandemic, and what characteristics were related to these changes. We use self-reported data from a sample of 965 informal caregivers from the Netherlands 3 months into the pandemic to investigate how the objective burden (i.e. hours spent on caregiving) and the subjective burden had changed, and what their care-related quality of life (CarerQol) was. We found that on average the subjective burden had increased slightly (from 4.75 to 5.04 on a 0-10 scale). However, our analysis revealed that some caregivers were more affected than others. Most affected caregivers were women, and those with low income, better physical health, decreased psychological health, childcare responsibilities, longer duration of caregiving and those caring for someone with decreased physical and psychological health. On average, time spent on care remained the same (a median of 15 h per week), but certain groups of caregivers did experience a change, being those caring for people in an institution and for people with a better psychological health before the pandemic. Furthermore, caregivers experiencing changes in objective burden did not have the same characteristics as those experiencing changes in perceived burden and quality of life. This shows that the consequences of a public health crisis on caregivers cannot be captured by a focus on either objective or subjective burden measures or quality of life alone. Long-term care policies aiming to support caregivers to persevere during a future crisis should target caregivers at risk of increased subjective burden and a lower CarerQol, such as women, people with a low income and people with childcare responsibilities. Such policies should consider that reducing objective burden may not necessarily lead to a reduction in subjective burden for all caregivers., (© 2022 The Authors. Health and Social Care in the Community published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed healthcare systems in many countries, and the rapid spread of the virus and the acute course of the disease resulted in a shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We studied preferences of the public in the Netherlands regarding the allocation of ICU beds during a health crisis., Methods: We distributed a cross-sectional online survey at the end of March 2020 to a representative sample of the adult population in the Netherlands. We collected preferences regarding the allocation of ICU beds, both in terms of who should be involved in the decision-making and which rationing criteria should be considered. We conducted Probit regression analyses to investigate associations between these preferences and several characteristics and opinions of the respondents., Results: A total of 1,019 respondents returned a completed survey. The majority favored having physicians (55%) and/or expert committees (51%) play a role in the allocation of ICU beds and approximately one-fifth did not favor any of the proposed decision-makers. Respondents preferred to assign higher priority to vulnerable patients and patients who have the best prospect of full recovery. They also preferred that personal characteristics, including age, play no role., Conclusion: "Our findings show that current guidelines for allocating ICU beds that include age as an independent criterion may not be consistent with societal preferences. Age may only play a role indirectly, in relation to the vulnerability of patients and their prospect of full recovery. Allocation of ICU beds during a health crisis requires a multivalue ethical framework.", Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic forms an unprecedented public health, economic, and social crisis. Uptake of vaccination is critical for controlling the pandemic. Nevertheless, vaccination hesitancy is considerable, requiring policies to promote uptake. We investigate Dutch citizens' preferences for policies that aim to promote vaccination through facilitating choice of vaccination, profiling it as the norm, making vaccination more attractive through rewards, or punishing people who reject vaccination., Methods: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 747 respondents were asked to choose between policies to promote vaccination uptake and their impacts on the number of deaths, people with permanent health problems, households with income loss, and a tax increase., Results: Respondents generally had a negative preference for policies that promote vaccination. They particularly disliked policies that punish those who reject the vaccine and were more favorable toward policies that reward vaccination, such as awarding additional rights to vaccinated individuals through vaccination passports. Respondents who reject vaccination were in general much more negative about the policy options than respondents who consider accepting the vaccine. Nevertheless, vaccination passports are supported by both respondents who accept the vaccine, those who reject vaccination, and those who are unsure about vaccination., Conclusions: This study provides concrete directions for governments attempting to increase the vaccination uptake in ways that are supported by the public. Our results could encourage policy makers to focus on policy options that make vaccination easier and reward people who take the vaccine, as especially the implementation of vaccination passports was supported., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for effective infectious disease outbreak prevention. This could entail installing an integrated, international early warning system, aiming to contain and mitigate infectious diseases outbreaks. The amount of resources governments should spend on such preventive measures can be informed by the value citizens attach to such a system. This was already recognized in 2018, when a contingent valuation willingness to pay (WTP) experiment was fielded, eliciting the WTP for such a system in six European countries. We replicated that experiment in the spring of 2020 to test whether and how WTP had changed during an actual pandemic (COVID-19), taking into account differences in infection rates and stringency of measures by government between countries. Overall, we found significant increases in WTP between the two time points, with mean WTP for an early warning system increasing by about 50% (median 30%), from around €20 to €30 per month. However, there were marked differences between countries and subpopulations, and changes were only partially explained by COVID-19 burden. We discuss possible explanations for and implication of our findings., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by governments to contain it have affected many aspects of the daily lives of citizens. This study aimed to describe changes in the productivity of paid work and time allocation to paid and unpaid work and leisure resulting from working at home during the pandemic., Methods: A sample of 851 people from the Netherlands who had paid work (≥ 24 h/week) and worked at least 4 hours per week extra at home because of lockdown measures completed a questionnaire during the first COVID-19 lockdown (April 2020). Respondents reported time spent on paid and unpaid work and leisure before and during the lockdown. Productivity was measured in terms of quantity and quality of paid work., Results: On average, respondents spent less time (14%) on paid work and productivity decreased 5.5%. Changes in productivity were associated with the age of children, net income and having a separate home office. Respondents spent more time on unpaid work (27%) and leisure (11%). Women spent more time on unpaid work in absolute but not in relative terms. People with a partner and with children spent more time on unpaid work and less time on leisure., Conclusions: Productivity of paid work decreased, and people reallocated time between paid and unpaid work and leisure during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Changes in time allocation and productivity differed across subgroups. If working at home becomes more common, future research should focus on the long-term impact on productivity and mental and physical health., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Vaccination is generally considered the most direct way to restoring normal life after the outbreak of COVID-19, but the available COVID-19 vaccines are simultaneously embraced and dismissed. Mapping factors for vaccine hesitancy may help the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines and provide valuable insights for future pandemics., Objectives: We investigate how characteristics of a COVID-19 vaccine affect the preferences of adult citizens in the Netherlands to take the vaccine directly, to refuse it outright, or to wait a few months and first look at the experiences of others., Methods: An online sample of 895 respondents participated between November 4th and November 10th, 2020 in a discrete choice experiment including the attributes: percentage of vaccinated individuals protected against COVID-19, month in which the vaccine would become available and the number of cases of mild and severe side effects. The data was analysed by means of panel mixed logit models., Results: Respondents found it important that a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine becomes available as soon as possible. However, the majority did not want to be the first in line and would rather wait for the experiences of others. The predicted uptake of a vaccine with the optimal combination of attributes was 87%, of whom 55% preferred to take the vaccine after a waiting period. This latter group tends to be lower-educated. Older respondents gave more weight to vaccine effectiveness than younger respondents., Conclusions: The willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine is high among adults in the Netherlands, but a considerable proportion prefers to delay their decision to vaccinate until experiences of others are known. Offering this wait-and-see group the opportunity to accept the invitation at a later moment may stimulate vaccination uptake. Our results further suggest that vaccination campaigns targeted at older citizens should focus on the effectiveness of the vaccine., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In this survey, we aimed to provide early insight into the impact of COVID-19 on blood donors and their motivation to donate during the crisis., Study Design and Methods: We asked representative samples in 7 European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands and the UK) about their blood donation activity and motivation to donate using an online survey. We analysed donor turnout during the COVID-19 period descriptively and using logistic regression., Results: Of the 7122 people that responded to the survey, 1205 (16·9%) blood donors were identified, with 33·8% donating during the first 4-5 months of the COVID-19 period. We observed that around half of donors donated less than normal. The vast majority of donors that did donate made a special effort to do so in response to COVID-19. The majority of donors were also not aware of their blood being tested for COVID-19 antibodies. Although the perceived risk of infection among all respondents whilst donating blood was relatively low, those who anticipated a high risk of infection were much less likely to donate (OR = 0·540; P-value = 0·006). Furthermore, those that were adherent to COVID guidelines were also less likely to donate (OR = 0·583; P-value = 0·000)., Discussion: We suggest that blood collection services consider specialist campaigns that focus on the altruistic motivation of donors during the crisis and that they continue to communicate the additional safety measures in place with the aim of reducing the fear of infection whilst donating blood., (© 2021 The Authors. Vox Sanguinis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Blood Transfusion.)

Background: Risk communication is a key component of public health interventions during an outbreak. As the coronavirus pandemic unfolded in late 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) was at the forefront in the development of risk communication strategies. The WHO introduced a range of activities with the purpose of enabling the public to avail verified and timely information on COVID-19 prevention behaviors. Given the various WHO activities to protect the public health during COVID-19, it is important to investigate the extent of familiarity and uptake of the WHO recommendations among the public during the first wave of the pandemic., Methods: To do this, we conducted a large-scale Pan-European survey covering around 7500 individuals that are representative of populations from seven European countries, collected online during April 2-April 15, 2020. We use descriptive statistics including proportions and correlations and graphical representations such as bar charts to analyze and display the data., Results: Our findings suggest that information from the WHO in the context of COVID-19 is well trusted and acted upon by the public. Overall familiarity and adherence were quite high in most countries. Adherence was higher for social distancing recommendations compared to hygiene measures. Familiarity and adherence were higher among older, female, and highly educated respondents. However, country level heterogeneities were observed in the level of trust in information from the WHO, with countries severely affected by the pandemic reporting lower levels of trust., Conclusion: Our findings call for efforts from health authorities to get regular feedback from the public on their familiarity and compliance with recommendations for preventive measures at all stages of the pandemic, to further develop and adapt risk communication as the pandemic evolves., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including vaccination rates; COVID-19 outbreaks; and herd immunity.