Population preferences for inclusive COVID-19 policy responses

[Factors associated with adherence to COVID-19 preventive behaviors in ELSA-Brasil participants]

The aim of the study is to assess the adherence to recommended prevention measures during the COVID-19 pandemic and to investigate the factors associated with this adherence in the adult population. This study has a cross-sectional design and used data from the complementary study Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil) - COVID, conducted from 2020 to 2021. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test and multinomial logistic regression. The sample consisted of 5,440 participants. The preventive measure with the highest adherence was the use of a face mask (95.5%). There was greater adherence by females and lower chance of adherence by white people, by those who consume alcoholic beverages, people who were retired, as well as for those who live alone or who have family members who did not follow the recommendations to stay at home. Greater adherence to preventive behaviors was observed in only one third of the participating population, which demonstrates that there was a need for greater awareness of the risks in specific populations. The findings contribute to improving our understanding about health promotion and COVID-19 prevention.

Predictive potential of SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration in wastewater to assess the dynamics of COVID-19 clinical outcomes and infections

Coronavirus disease 2019 - caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) -, has triggered a worldwide pandemic resulting in 665 million infections and over 6.5 million deaths as of December 15, 2022. The development of different epidemiological tools have helped predict new outbreaks and assess the behavior of clinical variables in different health contexts. In this study, we aimed to monitor concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater as a tool to predict the progression of clinical variables during Waves 3, 5, and 6 of the pandemic in the Spanish city of Xátiva from September 2020 to March 2022. We estimated SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in 195 wastewater samples using the RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel validated by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. We also compared the trends of several clinical variables (14-day cumulative incidence, positive cases, hospital cases and stays, critical cases and stays, primary care visits, and deaths) for each study wave against wastewater SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations using Pearson's product-moment correlations, a two-sided Mann-Whitney U test, and a cross-correlation analysis. We found strong correlations between SARS-CoV-2 concentrations with 14-day cumulative incidence and positive cases over time. Wastewater RNA concentrations showed strong correlations with these variables one and two weeks in advance. There were significant correlations with hospitalizations and critical care during Wave 3 and Wave 6; cross-correlations were stronger for hospitalization stays one week before during Wave 6. No association between vaccination percentages and wastewater viral concentrations was observed. Our findings support wastewater SARS-CoV-2 concentrations as a potential surveillance tool to anticipate infection and epidemiological data such as 14-day cumulative incidence, hospitalizations, and critical care stays. Public health authorities could use this epidemiological tool on a similar population as an aid for health care decision-making during an epidemic outbreak.

Public Preferences for Introducing a COVID-19 Certificate: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Here we investigate public preferences for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) certificates in the Netherlands, and whether these preferences differ between subgroups in the population.

METHODS

A survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to 1500 members of the adult population of the Netherlands. Each participant was asked to choose between hypothetical COVID-19 certificates that differed in seven attributes: the starting date, and whether the certificate allowed gathering with multiple people, shopping without appointment, visiting bars and restaurants, visiting cinemas and theatres, attending events, and practising indoor sports. Latent class models (LCMs) were used to determine the attribute relative importance and predicted acceptance rate of hypothetical certificates.

RESULTS

Three classes of preference patterns were identified in the LCM. One class a priori opposed a certificate (only two attributes influencing preferences), another class was relatively neutral and included all attributes in their decision making, and the final class was positive towards a certificate. Respondents aged > 65 years and those who plan to get vaccinated were more likely to belong to the latter two classes. Being allowed to shop without appointment and to visit bars and restaurants was most important to all respondents, increasing predicted acceptance rate by 12 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

Preferences for introduction of a COVID-19 certificate are mixed. A certificate that allows for shopping without appointment and visiting bars and restaurants is likely to increase acceptance. The support of younger citizens and those who plan to get vaccinated seems most sensitive to the specific freedoms granted by a COVID-19 certificate.

Are distributional preferences for safety stable? A longitudinal analysis before and after the COVID-19 outbreak

Policy makers aim to respect public preferences when making trade-offs between policies, yet most estimates of the value of safety neglect individuals' preferences over how safety is distributed. Incorporating these preferences into policy first requires measuring them. Arroyos-Calvera et al. (2019) documented that people cared most about efficiency, but that equity followed closely, and self-interest mattered too, but not enough to override preferences for efficiency and equity. Early 2020 saw the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This event would impose major changes in how people perceived and experienced risk to life, creating an opportunity to test whether safety-related preferences are stable and robust to important contextual changes. Further developing Arroyos-Calvera et al.’s methodology and re-inviting an international general population sample of participants that had taken part in pre-pandemic online surveys in 2017 and 2018, we collected an April 2020 wave of the survey and showed that overall preferences for efficiency, equity and self-interest were remarkably stable before and after the pandemic outbreak. We hope this offers policy makers reassurance that once these preferences have been elicited from a representative sample of the population, they need not be re-estimated after important contextual changes.

Preferences for COVID-19 epidemic control measures among French adults: a discrete choice experiment

In this stated preferences study, we describe for the first time French citizens' preferences for various epidemic control measures, to inform longer-term strategies and future epidemics. We used a discrete choice experiment in a representative sample of 908 adults in November 2020 (before vaccination was available) to quantify the trade-off they were willing to make between restrictions on the social, cultural, and economic life, school closing, targeted lockdown of high-incidence areas, constraints to directly protect vulnerable persons (e.g., self-isolation), and measures to overcome the risk of hospital overload. The estimation of mixed logit models with correlated random effects shows that some trade-offs exist to avoid overload of hospitals and intensive care units, at the expense of stricter control measures with the potential to reduce individuals' welfare. The willingness to accept restrictions was shared to a large extent across subgroups according to age, gender, education, vulnerability to the COVID-19 epidemic, and other socio-demographic or economic variables. However, individuals who felt at greater risk from COVID-19, and individuals expressing high confidence in the governmental management of the health and economic crisis, more easily accepted all these restrictions. Finally, we compared the welfare impact of alternative strategies combining different epidemic control measures. Our results suggest that policies close to a targeted lockdown or with medically prescribed self-isolation were those satisfying the largest share of the population and achieving high gain in average welfare, while average welfare was maximized by the combination of all highly restrictive measures. This illustrates the difficulty in making preference-based decisions on restrictions.

Population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: trade-offs among public health, individual rights, and economics

PROBLEM

Policymakers must decide on interventions to control the pandemic. These decisions are driven by weighing the risks and benefits of various non-pharmaceutical intervention alternatives. Due to the nature of the pandemic, these decisions are not based on sufficient evidence regarding the effects, nor are decision-makers informed about the willingness of populations to accept the economic and health risks associated with different policy options. This empirical study seeks to reduce uncertainty by measuring population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions.

METHODS

An online-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit population preferences. Respondents were asked to choose between three pandemic scenarios with different interventions and impacts of the Corona pandemic. In addition, Best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to analyze the impact of the duration of individual interventions on people's acceptance. The marginal rate of substitution was applied to estimate willingness-to-accept (WTA) for each intervention and effect by risk of infection.

RESULTS

Data from 3006 respondents were included in the analysis. The DCE showed, economic effect of non-pharmaceutical measures had a large impact on choice decisions for or against specific lockdown scenarios. Individual income decreases had the most impact. Excess mortality and individual risk of infection were also important factors influencing choice decisions. Curfews, contact restrictions, facility closures, personal data transmissions, and mandatory masking in public had a lesser impact. However, significant standard deviations in the random parameter logit model (RPL) indicated heterogeneities in the study population. The BWS results showed that short-term restrictions were more likely to be accepted than long-term restrictions. According to WTA estimates, people would be willing to accept a greater risk of infection to avoid loss of income.

DISCUSSION

The results can be used to determine which consequences of pandemic measures would be more severe for the population. For example, the results show that citizens want to limit the decline in individual income during pandemic measures. Participation in preference studies can also inform citizens about potential tradeoffs that decision-makers face in current and future decisions during a pandemic. Knowledge of the population's preferences will help inform decisions that consider people's perspectives and expectations for the future. Survey results can inform decision-makers about the extent to which the population is willing to accept certain lockdown measures, such as curfews, contact restrictions, lockdowns, or mandatory masks.

Stepping into the shoes of the policy maker: Results of a Participatory Value Evaluation for the Dutch long term COVID-19 strategy

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak early 2020 was followed by an unprecedented package of measures. The relative calmness of the pandemic early 2022 provides a momentum to prepare for various scenarios.

OBJECTIVES

As acceptance of COVID-19 measures is key for public support we investigated citizens' preferences towards imposing measures in four scenarios: 1) spring/summer scenario with few hospitalizations; 2) autumn/winter scenario with many hospitalizations; 3) a new contagious variant, the impact on hospitalizations is unclear; 4) a new contagious variant, hospitalizations will substantially increase.

METHODS

Study 1 comprised a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) in which 2011 respondents advised their government on which measures to impose in the four scenarios. Respondents received information regarding the impact of each measure on the risk that the health system would be overloaded. To triangulate the results, 2958 respondents in Study 2 evaluated the acceptability of the measures in each scenario.

RESULTS

Measures were ranked similarly by respondents in Study 1 and 2: 1) the majority of respondents thought that hygiene measures should be upheld, even in the spring/summer; 2) the majority supported booster vaccination, working from home, encouraging self-testing, and mandatory face masks from scenario 2 onwards; 3) even in scenario 4, lockdown measures were not supported by the majority. Young respondents were willing to accept more risks for the health system than older respondents.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that policies that focus on prevention (through advising low-impact hygiene measures) and early response to moderate threats (by scaling up to moderately restrictive measures and boostering) can count on substantial support. There is low support for lockdown measures even under high-risk conditions, which further emphasizes the importance of prevention and a timely response to new threats. Our results imply that young citizens' concerns, in particular, should be addressed when restrictive COVID-19 measures are to be implemented.

Public Preferences for Policies to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: A Discrete Choice Experiment in The Netherlands

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.

Nudging for Lockdown

Abstract. We test the effectiveness of a social comparison nudge (SCN) to enhance lockdown compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic using a French representative sample ( N = 1,154). Respondents were randomly assigned to a favorable/unfavorable informational feedback (daily road traffic mobility patterns, in Normandy – a region of France) on peer lockdown compliance. Our dependent variable was the intention to comply with a possible future lockdown. We controlled for risk, time, and social preferences and tested the effectiveness of the nudge. We found no evidence of the effectiveness of the SCN among the whole French population, but the nudge was effective when its recipient and the reference population shared the same geographical location (Normandy). Exploratory results on this subsample ( N = 52) suggest that this effectiveness could be driven by noncooperative individuals.

Les attendus d’une approche d’économie comportementale pour les décisions individuelles face à la pandémie de COVID-19 : succès et déceptions

Dans le cadre du premier appel à projet « Flash-COVID-19 » de l’Agence nationale de la recherche, nous avons mobilisé des méthodes récentes de l’économie comportementale afin de mieux comprendre les décisions des individus face à la crise sanitaire due à la pandémie de COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) et d’identifier les paramètres pouvant influencer le respect des mesures sanitaires. Cet article introduit brièvement l’économie comportementale, présente un compte rendu des attendus du projet CONFINOBS (Observance et observation des mesures barrières et du confinement : une approche d’économie comportementale) et de ses méthodes, puis il propose une synthèse des résultats obtenus.

Did Mindful People Do Better during the COVID-19 Pandemic? Mindfulness Is Associated with Well-Being and Compliance with Prophylactic Measures

This paper investigates the relationship between mindfulness and well-being within the context of compliance with prophylactic measures in the time of COVID-19. We conducted a large-scale survey among a representative sample of the French population. We measured mindfulness, using the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, and the extent to which respondents were impacted by COVID-19 in terms of their mood and quality of sleep, as well as how they complied with prophylactic measures. Our results suggest that more mindful individuals were less negatively impacted by COVID-19 with regard to their sleep and mood. Concerning the prophylactic measures, we obtained mixed results: more mindful participants were more likely to respect lockdowns, physical distancing and to cough in their sleeves, but did not wash their hands, wear masks or avoid touching their face more often than less mindful individuals.

Acceptability of government measures against COVID-19 pandemic in Senegal: A mixed methods study

While the first case of COVID-19 was declared on March 2 2020 in Senegal, the government banned the attendance of places of worship on 14 March, as a first measure. On March 23, it introduced a curfew, a ban on movement between regions, and the closure of markets. The objective of this study is to measure and understand the acceptability of these four governmental measures as well as the level of public trust in the state to fight the pandemic. We carried out a mixed-method research. The acceptability variables were defined using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). At the quantitative level, we carried out a telephone survey (June/July 2020) at the national level (n = 813) with a sampling strategy by marginal quotas. We conducted a qualitative survey (August/September 2020) with a nested sample (n = 30). The results show a relatively high acceptability of the measures but a heterogeneity of responses. People considered curfews to be much more important (85.7% [83.2%; 88.0%]) than the closure of places of worship (55.4%; [51.9%; 58.7%]), which is least in line with the values and positive affective attitude. Several positive unintended effects of the curfew were stated (security and social/family cohesion). People over the age of 60 have more confidence in the government to fight the pandemic than people under the age of 25, although not significant (7.72 ± 3.12 vs. 7.07 ± 3.11, p = 0.1); and they are more in favour of the closure of places of worship. The more regions are affected by the pandemic, the less confidence respondents report in the government and the less they perceive the measures as effective. The results confirm the importance of government communication and trust in the state to strengthen the acceptability of pandemic measures. Important differences in acceptability show the need to adapt measures and their explanations, instead of unqualified universal action.

Estimation of Excess Mortality and Years of Life Lost to COVID-19 in Norway and Sweden between March and November 2020

We estimate the weekly excess all-cause mortality in Norway and Sweden, the years of life lost (YLL) attributed to COVID-19 in Sweden, and the significance of mortality displacement. We computed the expected mortality by taking into account the declining trend and the seasonality in mortality in the two countries over the past 20 years. From the excess mortality in Sweden in 2019/20, we estimated the YLL attributed to COVID-19 using the life expectancy in different age groups. We adjusted this estimate for possible displacement using an auto-regressive model for the year-to-year variations in excess mortality. We found that excess all-cause mortality over the epidemic year, July 2019 to July 2020, was 517 (95%CI = (12, 1074)) in Norway and 4329 [3331, 5325] in Sweden. There were 255 COVID-19 related deaths reported in Norway, and 5741 in Sweden, that year. During the epidemic period of 11 March–11 November, there were 6247 reported COVID-19 deaths and 5517 (4701, 6330) excess deaths in Sweden. We estimated that the number of YLL attributed to COVID-19 in Sweden was 45,850 [13,915, 80,276] without adjusting for mortality displacement and 43,073 (12,160, 85,451) after adjusting for the displacement accounted for by the auto-regressive model. In conclusion, we find good agreement between officially recorded COVID-19 related deaths and all-cause excess deaths in both countries during the first epidemic wave and no significant mortality displacement that can explain those deaths.

Adherence to behavioral Covid-19 mitigation measures strongly predicts mortality

In the absence of vaccines or causal therapies, behavioral measures such as wearing face masks and maintaining social distance are central to fighting Covid-19. Yet, their benefits are often questioned by the population and the level of adherence to the measures is variable. We examined in representative samples across eight countries (N = 7,568) whether adherence reported around June 1, 2020 predicted the increase in Covid-19 mortality by August 31, 2020. Mortality increased 81.3% in low adherence countries (United States, Sweden, Poland, Russia), 8.4% in high adherence countries (Germany, France, Spain, United Kingdom). Across countries adherence and subsequent mortality increases correlated with r = -0.91. No African or South American countries were included in the present study, which limits the generalizability of the findings. While reported Covid-19 mortality is likely to be influenced by other factors, the almost tenfold difference in additional mortality is significant, and may inform decisions when choosing whether to prioritize individual liberty rights or health-protective measures.