Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the introduction of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions such as precautionary behaviours. The current study used affective priming to evaluate COVID-19 attitudes in vaccine-hesitant and pro-vaccine participants. Explicitly, both groups rated their overall perception of risk associated with contracting COVID-19 significantly lower compared to their perception of necessary precautions and overall adherence to public health measures. Pro-vaccine participants rated their perception of necessary precautions higher compared to vaccine-hesitant participants. During baseline measures, both groups classified COVID-19 affiliated words as unpleasant. Affective priming was observed for congruent prime-target pleasant and unpleasant word pairs but was not observed for COVID-19 related word pairs. Differences between groups in the perception of necessary public health precautions points to different underlying pathways for reduced perceived risk and lack of affective priming. These results refine previous findings indicating that implicit attitudes towards COVID-19 can be measured using the affective priming paradigm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides recommendations for neurorehabilitative research informed by insights from critical disability studies (CDS) and a research study that tested an augmented neurorehabilitative technology prototype. The methodology combines critical reflection, feminist science studies and CDS to analyze how neurorehabilitation and disability studies conceptualize notions of disability and cure. It offers recommendations for reconciling the conflicting ideologies of cure that operate within neurorehabilitative research. The prototype acted as a kind of virtual reality hope machine that tapped into different emotions and language games regarding disability and cure. The result is five recommendations about the ways that a CDS perspective might inform neurorehabilitation research: (I) ensure clarity in recruitment materials to account for dominant social views on disability and the possibility of cure; (II) build "strong objectivity" into research methods through attention to social context and multiple meanings of terms; (III) engage in critical reflection about research processes and findings; (IV) incorporate principles of crip technoscience; and (V) include CDS perspectives in neurorehabilitation education. Bridging a conversation between neurorehabilitative research and CDS can address the discrepancies between ideologies of cure, and situate rehabilitation within the wider concerns of social determinants of health and disability justice. Bridging connections between rehabilitation studies and critical disability studies can generate productive insights that open up conversations with disabled people and a commitment to disability justice. Disability and cure are social constructs and may have different meanings for patients and rehabilitation professionals. Clinicians should be mindful of the conflicting ideological constructs and socio-political dimensions of disability and cure that are operating below the surface in the rehabilitation profession and in interactions between clinicians and patients. As technology continues to transform clinical rehabilitation care through virtual reality and other innovative paradigms, rehabilitation clinicians should recognize the potential for these technologies to become "hope machines," generating patient expectations that are idealized constructions of hoped-for outcomes of returning to a previous state or level of functionality rather than predictive expectations of likely results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]