Dataset Information

Crossroads of well-being and compliance: a qualitative cohort study of visitor restriction policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Netherlands, May 2020-December 2021.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In this qualitative study we observed in-depth the impact of the visiting restriction policy (VRP, i.e. number of visitors allowed at home) on well-being and compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic to regulate infection rates.

Methods

A cohort of 15 interviewees was followed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands in 12 interview rounds (May 2020-December 2021). Every round semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted by a team of 8 researchers. In total 176 interviews were conducted.

Results

This study showed that four categories can be identified when observing the impact of the VRP on well-being and compliance. For Resilient-Followers reasons for compliance were risk perception, following government rules, and for some having a small social circle. Because they accepted the situation, well-being was hardly affected. Resilient-Rulebreakers made their own risk assessment of people they met. Their well-being was hardly affected, because they experienced social rest and interpreted the measure in their own way. Suffering-Followers complied, because of risk perception, following government rules, and working in healthcare. However, the VRP had substantial impact on well-being, because social structures were disrupted. Suffering-Rulebreakers gave their own interpretation to the VRP, trying to find a balance between compliance and well-being. We observed that the categories were quite stable over time.

Conclusions

The VRP appeared to be a measure with substantial impact on well-being for some, mostly because social structures were disrupted. The measure showed fluctuating compliance, in which feasibility and frequent changes in the VRP played a role. Well-being seemed related to the number of visitors that was allowed; a restriction of four visitors was feasible, while one visitor resulted in a negative breaking-point in resilience, which had an impact on compliance, even among the most compliant. Taken together, this study provides valuable insights into the implications of and compliance to a VRP during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may contribute to policymaking during future pandemics.

SUBMITTER: Arrahmani F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10787453 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Crossroads of well-being and compliance: a qualitative cohort study of visitor restriction policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Netherlands, May 2020-December 2021.

Arrahmani Fatima F Gorter Annerike A Elberse Janneke J Buitenhuis Anne H AH Kok Gerjo G Spruijt Pita P

BMC public health 20240113 1

<h4>Background</h4>In this qualitative study we observed in-depth the impact of the visiting restriction policy (VRP, i.e. number of visitors allowed at home) on well-being and compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic to regulate infection rates.<h4>Methods</h4>A cohort of 15 interviewees was followed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands in 12 interview rounds (May 2020-December 2021). Every round semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted by a team of 8 researchers. In to ...[more]

PMID: 38218791

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe COVID-19 vaccine distribution operations in United States Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) institutions and offices from December 16, 2020-April 14, 2021, report vaccination coverage among staff and incarcerated people, and identify factors associated with vaccination acceptance among incarcerated people.MethodsThe BOP COVID-19 vaccination plan and implementation timeline are described. Descriptive statistics and vaccination coverage were calculated for the BOP incarcerated population using data from the BOP electronic medical record. Coverage among staff was calculated using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccination Administration Management System. Vaccination coverage in the BOP versus the overall United States adult population was compared by state/territory. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were developed to identify demographic, health-related, and institution-level factors associated with vaccination acceptance among incarcerated people, using hierarchical linear modeling to account for institution-level clustering.ResultsBy April 14, 2021, BOP had offered COVID-19 vaccination to 37,870 (100%) staff and 88,173/126,413 (69.8%) incarcerated people, with acceptance rates of 50.2% and 64.2%, respectively. At the time of analysis, vaccination coverage in BOP was comparable to coverage in the overall adult population in the states and territories where BOP institutions and offices are located. Among incarcerated people, factors associated with lower vaccination acceptance included younger age, female sex, non-Hispanic Black and Asian race/ethnicity, and having few underlying medical conditions; factors associated with higher acceptance included having a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, being born outside the United States, and being assigned to a Federal Detention Center.ConclusionsEarly COVID-19 vaccination efforts in BOP have achieved levels of coverage similar to the general population. To build on this initial success, BOP can consider strategies including re-offering vaccination to people who initially refused and tailoring communication strategies to groups with lower acceptance rates.

Project description:ImportanceThe second year of the COVID-19 pandemic saw periods of dire health care resource limitations in the US, sometimes prompting official declarations of crisis, but little is known about how these conditions were experienced by frontline clinicians.ObjectiveTo describe the experiences of US clinicians practicing under conditions of extreme resource limitation during the second year of the pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative inductive thematic analysis was based on interviews with physicians and nurses providing direct patient care at US health care institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were conducted between December 28, 2020, and December 9, 2021.ExposureCrisis conditions as reflected by official state declarations and/or media reports.Main outcomes and measuresClinicians' experiences as obtained through interviews.ResultsInterviews with 23 clinicians (21 physicians and 2 nurses) who were practicing in California, Idaho, Minnesota, or Texas were included. Of the 23 total participants, 21 responded to a background survey to assess participant demographics; among these individuals, the mean (SD) age was 49 (7.3) years, 12 (57.1%) were men, and 18 (85.7%) self-identified as White. Three themes emerged in qualitative analysis. The first theme describes isolation. Clinicians had a limited view on what was happening outside their immediate practice setting and perceived a disconnect between official messaging about crisis conditions and their own experience. In the absence of overarching system-level support, responsibility for making challenging decisions about how to adapt practices and allocate resources often fell to frontline clinicians. The second theme describes in-the-moment decision-making. Formal crisis declarations did little to guide how resources were allocated in clinical practice. Clinicians adapted practice by drawing on their clinical judgment but described feeling ill equipped to handle some of the operationally and ethically complex situations that fell to them. The third theme describes waning motivation. As the pandemic persisted, the strong sense of mission, duty, and purpose that had fueled extraordinary efforts earlier in the pandemic was eroded by unsatisfying clinical roles, misalignment between clinicians' own values and institutional goals, more distant relationships with patients, and moral distress.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this qualitative study suggest that institutional plans to protect frontline clinicians from the responsibility for allocating scarce resources may be unworkable, especially in a state of chronic crisis. Efforts are needed to directly integrate frontline clinicians into institutional emergency responses and support them in ways that reflect the complex and dynamic realities of health care resource limitation.

Project description:ObjectivesIn the Netherlands, during the first phase of the COVID-19 epidemic, the hotspot of COVID-19 overlapped with the country's main livestock area, while in subsequent phases this distinct spatial pattern disappeared. Previous studies show that living near livestock farms influence human respiratory health and immunological responses. This study aimed to explore whether proximity to livestock was associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsThe study population was the population of the Netherlands excluding the very strongly urbanised areas and border areas, on January 1, 2019 (12, 628, 244 individuals). The cases are the individuals reported with a laboratory-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test with onset before January 1, 2022 (2, 223, 692 individuals). For each individual, we calculated distance to nearest livestock farm (cattle, goat, sheep, pig, poultry, horse, rabbit, mink). The associations between residential (6-digit postal-code) distance to the nearest livestock farm and individuals' SARS-CoV-2 status was studied with multilevel logistic regression models. Models were adjusted for individuals' age categories, the social status of the postal code area, particulate matter (PM10)- and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)-concentrations. We analysed data for the entire period and population as well as separately for eight time periods (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, Jul-Sep and Oct-Dec in 2020 and 2021), four geographic areas of the Netherlands (north, east, west and south), and for five age categories (0-14, 15-24, 25-44, 45-64 and > 65 years).ResultsOver the period 2020-2021, individuals' SARS-CoV-2 status was associated with living closer to livestock farms. This association increased from an Odds Ratio (OR) of 1.01 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.01-1.02) for patients living at a distance of 751-1000 m to a farm to an OR of 1.04 (95% CI 1.04-1.04), 1.07 (95% CI 1.06-1.07) and 1.11 (95% CI 1.10-1.12) for patients living in the more proximate 501-750 m, 251-500m and 0-250 m zones around farms, all relative to patients living further than 1000 m around farms. This association was observed in three out of four quarters of the year in both 2020 and 2021, and in all studied geographic areas and age groups.ConclusionsIn this exploratory study with individual SARS-CoV-2 notification data and high-resolution spatial data associations were found between living near livestock farms and individuals' SARS-CoV-2 status in the Netherlands. Verification of the results in other countries is warranted, as well as investigations into possible underlying exposures and mechanisms.

Dataset Information

Crossroads of well-being and compliance: a qualitative cohort study of visitor restriction policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Netherlands, May 2020-December 2021.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Crossroads of well-being and compliance: a qualitative cohort study of visitor restriction policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Netherlands, May 2020-December 2021.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets