Data of the multi-wave population-based prospective Victims in Modern Society (VICTIMS) study on potential traumatic events, social support, mental health, coping self-efficacy and services use

We present the data of the first six annual surveys of the large prospective population-based Dutch VICTIMS-study that started in 2018. Each survey systematically examines exposure to potential traumatic events in the past 12 months, including time of event and amount of stress during the event. Furthermore, each survey assesses anxiety and depression symptomatology, lack of social support, physical, mental, work, partner/family, religious, legal, administrative and financial problems, and problem-related services use. Among the by potentially traumatic events (PTEs) affected respondents, current PTSD-symptomatology, social acknowledgement, events-related contacts with various professional, and coping self-efficacy related to the (most stressful) PTE in the past 12 months was examined. This multi-wave study is conducted using the Dutch Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences panel (LISS panel) that is based on a large traditional probability sample of the Dutch population (16+). People cannot register themselves as a panel member which minimizes the risks of selection bias. Panel members receive a financial compensation for each completed questionnaire, which has a positive effect on the response rate. Households that would otherwise be unable to participate are provided with a simple, remotely managed computer and internet connection. The set-up of the LISS panel in 2007 was funded by the Dutch Research Council and is managed by Centerdata, a non-profit institute housed at the campus of Tilburg University (The Netherlands). The number of invited (adult) panel members for the VICTIM-study varies between 6119 and 7096 across the years, and the response rate varies between 82.4 % and 87.9 %. The data of the VICTIMS-study can efficiently be linked with archived data of all other (past or future) studies conducted with the LISS panel, such as the annual Core studies on Health and Personality, and the 300+ Assembled studies conducted with the LISS panel. This offers unique opportunities for researchers to address numerous research questions related to potential traumatic and stressful life-events.

The perceived deservingness of COVID-19 healthcare in the Netherlands: a conjoint experiment on priority access to intensive care and vaccination

BACKGROUND

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, governments, health experts, and ethicists have proposed guidelines about ICU triage and priority access to a vaccine. To increase political legitimacy and accountability, public support is important. This study examines what criteria beyond medical need are deemed important to be perceived of priority COVID-19 healthcare access.

METHOD

Two conjoint experiments about priority over ICU treatment and early COVID-19 vaccination were implemented in a probability-based sample of 1461 respondents representative of the Netherlands. Respondents were asked who should receive treatment out of two fictitious healthcare claimants that differed in in age, weight, complying with corona policy measures, and occupation, all randomly assigned. Average marginal coefficient effects are estimated to assess the relative importance of the attributes; attributes were interacted with relevant respondent characteristics to find whether consensus exists in this relative ranking.

RESULTS

The Dutch penalize those not complying with coronavirus policy measures, and the obese, but prioritize those employed in 'crucial' sectors. For these conditions, there is consensus among the population. For age, young people are prioritized for ICU treatment, while the middle-aged are given priority over a vaccine, with younger respondents favoring healthcare for elderly claimants, while older respondents favor support for young cohorts.

CONCLUSION

People who have no control over their social risk and are able to reciprocate to society are considered as more deserving of priority of COVID-19 healthcare. Our findings provide fair support for the implemented ethical guidelines about ICU-treatment and COVID-19 vaccines.