Search

Background: In the COVID 19 pandemia compliance by the population with legally established preventive measures is of utmost importance to contain the spread of the virus. It can be assumed that these prevention measures are associated with specific burdens which are managed differently by the various population groups., Objectives: The survey assesses not only the general public's acceptance, concerns and burdens with regard to the prevention measures, but also the corresponding applied coping strategies depending on various socio-demographic and personality-specific factors., Method: An online survey of N=3006 persons living in Germany and Austria during the early lockdown, by means of a self-constructured questionnaire, assesses concerns about the virus and the prevention measures taken by the governments. In addition, standardized scales were used: Stress Processing Questionnaire (SVF 78), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Insecurity-Intolerance scale (UI-18) and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)., Results: Overall, a high level of acceptance of the required prevention measures was found. However, the shown emotional reactions were differing among the various population groups: Individuals between 18 and 29 years showed significantly higher negative emotional reactions compared to all other groups. A cluster analysis of this young population group revealed five groups that differed significantly in all surveyed personality factors and showed group-specific coping profiles., Discussion: Younger people are often described as a particularly vulnerable group in connection with the pandemic. The present study shows, however, that the group of the young adults should not be considered as homogeneous., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: The first wave of the COVID-19-pandemic hit different countries with varying degrees of severity, so that differences in the type and level of emergency measures were also necessary. It can be assumed that the psychological burden was higher in countries subjected to a more severe course of the pandemic (Italy) than in countries subjected to a less severe one (Germany, Austria)., Objective: To investigate and contrast the wellbeing of the population in Italy, Austria, and Germany in the early phase of the first lockdown., Method: Online survey on N = 4289 individuals. The questionnaire comprised a self-administered section, exploring the dimensions: perceived severity of COVID-19, perceived risk of disease, concerns related to COVID-19, emergency measure acceptance and emotional distress due to emergency measures; and standardized scales to record emotional state and coping: Stress-Coping-Style Questionnaire, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, State-Trait-Anxiety-Inventory., Results: The three countries displayed significant differences in all investigated dimensions (p < .001). Italian participants assessed the COVID-19 virus as much more dangerous (p < .001), but despite the prevalence of the virus, the subjective risk of disease was perceived to be lower in Italy (p < .001). This could be a positive effect of the restrictive curfews set by the government in Italy. The emergency measures were generally perceived to be very effective in all three countries, but due to the duration and the severity of the measures, the fear and stress-reaction were the strongest among Italian participants (p < .001)., Conclusion: The stricter measures in Italy prevented an application of many positive stress processing strategies, which, in turn, fostered the perpetuation of stresses and fear., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Particularly during the early and middle stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a population's compliance with precautionary measures (e.g., hygiene rules, smart working, travel restrictions, and quarantine) is paramount in preventing the virus from spreading. Objective: The investigation and documentation of different socio-demographic and personality-specific factors in regards to preventative measures and consequent specific health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the Health Belief Model. Method: An online survey was conducted on N = 3,006 individuals living in Germany and Austria during the early stages of lockdown. The questionnaire consisted of a self-administered section, exploring the dimensions posited in the Health Belief Model: perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, perceived barriers, perceived benefits of health-promoting measures, and engagement in health-promoting behaviors. Additionally, the following standardized scales were used to record personality determinants: the Stress Coping Style Questionnaire SVF 78 to evaluate coping and processing strategies in stressful circumstances, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) to assess the emotional state induced by the coronavirus crisis, the UI-18 scale to diagnose the intolerance of uncertainty, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) to assess anxiety. Results: In line with the Health Belief model, four groups were created based on perceived susceptibility and engagement in health-promoting behaviors, and consequently studied in relation to personality determinants. Those four groups differed significantly in regards to almost all personality dimensions ( p ≤ 0.005). Group 1 ( n = 450) shows a reduced engagement with protective measures and displays underestimation of the COVID-19-pandemic. Group 2 ( n = 984) displays many positive personality variables and high compliance with protective measures. Group 3 ( n = 468) perceives the subjective risk of disease as high, but high emotional discomfort and stress caused by the protective measures leads to the activation of a complex fear defense. Group 4 ( n = 1,004) is highly anxious and therefore compliant. Conclusion: This typification has implications for establishing the appropriate support systems. This is particularly important to encourage compliance with preventive regulations within the groups, which showed poor abidance for several reasons. For Group 1, further education on the realistic threat and efficient protective measures is as central as the fostering of empathy for others; with its resource-conscious exemplary behavior Group 2 could be used as a positive social role model. Group 3 would benefit from promoting self-care, while Group 4 requires information on psychosocial assistance availability in order to mitigate the high stress to which the group members are subjected., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Eichenberg, Grossfurthner, Andrich, Hübner, Kietaibl and Holocher-Benetka.)