Newspaper coverage on solidarity and personal responsibility in the COVID-19 pandemic: A content analysis from Germany and German-speaking Switzerland

[Evaluation of the implementation of the measles and COVID-19 vaccination mandates by public health authorities and health facilities: 2 case studies]

BACKGROUND

In Germany, two vaccination mandates were introduced in response to measles outbreaks and stagnating COVID-19 vaccination rates. In March 2020, the Measles Protection Act came into effect, and in December 2021, a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for medical institutions was enacted. The aim of this study was to examine the implementation of both vaccination mandates and the associated challenges in public health authorities (PHAs) and other affected institutions.

METHODS

Thirty semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with PHAs and other institutions from federal states with both high and low vaccination rates. The online interviews took place in October and November 2022, were electronically recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

The implementation of the measles vaccination mandate was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and postponed several times until after the end of the transition period. For the temporary COVID-19 vaccination mandate, lengthy administrative processes were a major aspect that hindered the implementation of measures and limited its effectiveness. Sanctions were rarely imposed in either case. Implementation was characterized by significant heterogeneity; PHAs reported legal uncertainties regarding practical implementation and a lack of clarity on who should report. The mandates also created conflicting aims between the mandate and concerns over potential personnel shortages or denied educational opportunities.

DISCUSSION

This study identified key factors for the successful implementation of a vaccination mandate. Mandatory reporting, even in cases where no problems exist, standardized procedures, and legal support could facilitate implementation. However, it remains uncertain how to resolve conflicts of aims arising from vaccination mandates.

Swiss residents' information behavior perceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal qualitative study

People's information behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic was challenged through vast amounts of information, misinformation, and disinformation. This study sets out to address the research gap of longitudinal, qualitative inquiries about how people's information behavior changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. It aims to assess how residents of German-speaking Switzerland perceived and evaluated information gathering during a global health crisis. As part of the "Solidarity in Times of a Pandemic" (SolPan) Research Commons, 83 semi-structured interviews with residents of German-speaking Switzerland were conducted in April 2020 (T1), October 2020 (T2), and October 2021 (T3). People were asked about their lived experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative data analysis followed a reflexive thematic analysis approach, using Wilson's model of information behavior as a theoretical framework. Participants perceived high-quality journalistic news media, the Swiss national government, scientific experts, and their direct social environment as trustworthy information sources. They were motivated to gather information through the wish of gaining agency and certainty in the context of a major, global health crisis. Intervening variables that hindered information seeking included a perceived lack of agency, habituation effects in the later stages of the pandemic, information overload, inconsistent information, and conspiracy theories. While information needs were generally high in T1, participants expressed a growing extent of information fatigue in T2. In T3, the most prominent themes were conflicting information and differing interpretations, which led to an increased perception of societal polarization, which was perceived as a direct consequence of participants' information behavior. This finding is contextualized through established models of attitude formation: The study indicates how participants formed rather stable attitudes over time and how this led to a growing polarization and societal segmentation as the pandemic progressed. Practical implications regarding how to meet such societal polarization during crises are discussed.

Solidarity and reciprocity during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal qualitative interview study from Germany

BACKGROUND

While solidarity practices were important in mitigating the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, their limits became evident as the pandemic progressed. Taking a longitudinal approach, this study analyses German residents' changing perceptions of solidarity practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and examines potential reasons for these changes.

METHODS

Adults living in Germany were interviewed in April 2020 (n = 46), October 2020 (n = 43) and October 2021 (n = 40) as part of the SolPan Research Commons, a large-scale, international, qualitative, longitudinal study uniquely situated in a major global public health crisis. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

While solidarity practices were prominently discussed and positively evaluated in April 2020, this initial enthusiasm waned in October 2020 and October 2021. Yet, participants still perceived solidarity as important for managing the pandemic and called for institutionalized forms of solidarity in October 2020 and October 2021. Reasons for these changing perceptions of solidarity included (i) increasing personal and societal costs to act in solidarity, (ii) COVID-19 policies hindering solidarity practices, and (iii) a perceived lack of reciprocity as participants felt that solidarity practices from the state were not matching their individual efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining solidarity contributes to maximizing public health during a pandemic. Institutionalized forms of solidarity to support those most in need contribute to perceived reciprocity among individuals, which might increase their motivation to act in solidarity. Thus, rather than calling for individual solidarity during times of crisis, authorities should consider implementing sustaining solidarity-based social support systems that go beyond immediate crisis management.