scholarly journals Public perceptions and preventive behaviours during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparative study between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom (Preprint)

10.2196/23231 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh Bowman ◽  
Kin On Kwok ◽  
Rozlyn Redd ◽  
Yuanyuan Yi ◽  
Helen Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
The United Kingdom

Comparing Public Perceptions of the Necessities of Life across Two Societies: Japan and the United Kingdom

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aya Abe ◽  
Christina Pantazis
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Ordinary People ◽  
Comparative Analyses ◽  
Perceived Needs ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Deprivation Approach ◽  
Nationally Representative

Establishing what constitutes ‘need’ has been a long-standing tradition in empirical investigations of poverty. In their pioneering Poor Britain study, Joanna Mack and Stewart Lansley (1985) developed the ‘consensual’ or ‘socially perceived deprivation’ approach. This sought the views of ordinary people (as opposed to academics or professional experts) in determining the necessities of life. Their approach subsequently provided the basis for further UK poverty surveys, as well as studies in other counties in Europe, Australasia, Africa and Asia. Despite this international proliferation, comparative analyses examining public perceptions of need across different societies and cultures remain sparse. This article presents findings from the first Japanese–UK comparative study based on nationally representative surveys informed by Mack and Lansley's approach. It compares the necessities of life in the two societies, examining differences as well as common socially perceived needs, and explores two possible explanations accounting for the variations found. In doing this, the article seeks to contribute to international debates on public attitudes towards the necessities of life.

scholarly journals Comparing Public Perceptions and Preventive Behaviors During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom: Cross-sectional Survey Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh Bowman ◽  
Kin On Kwok ◽  
Rozlyn Redd ◽  
Yuanyuan Yi ◽  
Helen Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Disease Outbreaks ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Explanatory Variables ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Given the public health responses to previous respiratory disease pandemics, and in the absence of treatments and vaccines, the mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic relies on population engagement in nonpharmaceutical interventions. This engagement is largely driven by risk perception, anxiety levels, and knowledge, as well as by historical exposure to disease outbreaks, government responses, and cultural factors. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to compare psychobehavioral responses in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS Comparable cross-sectional surveys were administered to adults in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom during the early phase of the epidemic in each setting. Explanatory variables included demographics, risk perception, knowledge of COVID-19, anxiety level, and preventive behaviors. Responses were weighted according to census data. Logistic regression models, including effect modification to quantify setting differences, were used to assess the association between the explanatory variables and the adoption of social distancing measures. RESULTS Data from 3431 complete responses (Hong Kong, 1663; United Kingdom, 1768) were analyzed. Perceived severity of symptoms differed by setting, with weighted percentages of 96.8% for Hong Kong (1621/1663) and 19.9% for the United Kingdom (366/1768). A large proportion of respondents were abnormally or borderline anxious (Hong Kong: 1077/1603, 60.0%; United Kingdom: 812/1768, 46.5%) and regarded direct contact with infected individuals as the transmission route of COVID-19 (Hong Kong: 94.0%-98.5%; United Kingdom: 69.2%-93.5%; all percentages weighted), with Hong Kong identifying additional routes. Hong Kong reported high levels of adoption of various social distancing measures (Hong Kong: 32.6%-93.7%; United Kingdom: 17.6%-59.0%) and mask-wearing (Hong Kong: 98.8% (1647/1663); United Kingdom: 3.1% (53/1768)). The impact of perceived severity of symptoms and perceived ease of transmission of COVID-19 on the adoption of social distancing measures varied by setting. In Hong Kong, these factors had no impact, whereas in the United Kingdom, those who perceived their symptom severity as “high” were more likely to adopt social distancing (adjusted odds ratios [aORs] 1.58-3.01), and those who perceived transmission as “easy” were prone to adopt both general social distancing (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.57-2.55) and contact avoidance (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.41-2.30). The impact of anxiety on adopting social distancing did not vary by setting. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that health officials should ascertain baseline levels of risk perception and knowledge in populations, as well as prior sensitization to infectious disease outbreaks, during the development of mitigation strategies. Risk should be communicated through suitable media channels—and trust should be maintained—while early intervention remains the cornerstone of effective outbreak response.

scholarly journals Public perceptions and preventive behaviours during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparative study between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh Bowman ◽  
Kin On Kwok ◽  
Rozlyn Redd ◽  
Yuanyuan Yi ◽  
Helen Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Disease Outbreaks ◽  
Perceived Severity ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Explanatory Variables ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Impact

Background: In the absence of treatments and vaccines, the mitigation of COVID-19 relies on population engagement in non-pharmaceutical interventions, which is driven by their risk perception, anxiety level and knowledge. There may also be regional discrepancies in these drivers due to different historical exposure to disease outbreaks, government responses and cultures. As such, this study compared psycho-behavioral responses in two regions during the early phase of the pandemic. Methods: Comparable cross-sectional surveys were administered among adults in Hong Kong (HK) and the United Kingdom (UK) during the early phase of each respective epidemic. Explanatory variables included demographics, risk perception and knowledge of COVID-19, anxiety level and preventive behaviors. Responses were weighted according to census data. Logistic regression models, including interaction terms to quantify regional differences, were used to assess the association between explanatory variables and the adoption of social-distancing measures. Results: Data of 3431 complete responses (HK:1663; UK:1768) were analysed. Perceived severity differed by region (HK: 97.5%; UK: 20.7%). A large proportion of respondents were abnormally/borderline anxious (HK:64.8%; UK:45.9%) and regarded direct contact with infected individuals as the transmission route of COVID-19 (HK:94.0-98.5%; UK:69.2-93.5%), with HK identifying additional routes. HK reported high levels of adoption of social-distancing (HK:32.4-93.7%; UK:17.6-59.0%) and mask-wearing (HK:98.8%; UK:3.1%). The impact of perceived severity and perceived ease of transmission on the adoption of social-distancing varied by region. In HK, they had no impact, whereas in the UK, those who perceived severity as 'high' were more likely to adopt social-distancing (aOR:1.58-3.01), and those who perceived transmission as 'easy' were prone to both general social-distancing (aOR:2.00, 95% CI:1.57, 2.55) and contact avoidance (aOR:1.80, 95% CI: 1.41, 2.30). The impact of anxiety on adopting social-distancing did not vary by region. Discussion: These results suggest that health officials should ascertain and consider baseline levels of risk perception and knowledge in the populations, as well as prior sensitisation to infectious disease outbreaks, during the development of mitigation strategies. Risk communication should be done through suitable media channels - and trust should be maintained - while early intervention remains the cornerstone of effective outbreak response.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document