13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-SCORE: A global survey to assess public perceptions of government responses to COVID-19 (COVID-SCORE-10)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Understanding public perceptions of government responses to COVID-19 may foster improved public cooperation. Trust in government and population risk of exposure may influence public perception of the response. Other population-level characteristics, such as country socio-economic development, COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, and degree of democratic government, may influence perception.

          Methods and findings

          We developed a novel ten-item instrument that asks respondents to rate key aspects of their government’s response to the pandemic (COVID-SCORE). We examined whether the results varied by gender, age group, education level, and monthly income. We also examined the internal and external validity of the index using appropriate predefined variables. To test for dimensionality of the results, we used a principal component analysis (PCA) for the ten survey items. We found that Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92 and that the first component of the PCA explained 60% of variance with the remaining factors having eigenvalues below 1, strongly indicating that the tool is both reliable and unidimensional. Based on responses from 13,426 people randomly selected from the general population in 19 countries, the mean national scores ranged from 35.76 (Ecuador) to 80.48 (China) out of a maximum of 100 points. Heterogeneity in responses was observed across age, gender, education and income with the greatest amount of heterogeneity observed between countries. National scores correlated with respondents’ reported levels of trust in government and with country-level COVID-19 mortality rates.

          Conclusions

          The COVID-SCORE survey instrument demonstrated satisfactory validity. It may help governments more effectively engage constituents in current and future efforts to control COVID-19. Additional country-specific assessment should be undertaken to measure trends over time and the public perceptions of key aspects of government responses in other countries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

          Summary The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities

            This essay examines the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for health inequalities. It outlines historical and contemporary evidence of inequalities in pandemics—drawing on international research into the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918, the H1N1 outbreak of 2009 and the emerging international estimates of socio-economic, ethnic and geographical inequalities in COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. It then examines how these inequalities in COVID-19 are related to existing inequalities in chronic diseases and the social determinants of health, arguing that we are experiencing a syndemic pandemic. It then explores the potential consequences for health inequalities of the lockdown measures implemented internationally as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the likely unequal impacts of the economic crisis. The essay concludes by reflecting on the longer-term public health policy responses needed to ensure that the COVID-19 pandemic does not increase health inequalities for future generations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19

              Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may disproportionately affect people with cardiovascular disease. Concern has been aroused regarding a potential harmful effect of angiotensin-converting–enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in this clinical context. Methods Using an observational database from 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America, we evaluated the relationship of cardiovascular disease and drug therapy with in-hospital death among hospitalized patients with Covid-19 who were admitted between December 20, 2019, and March 15, 2020, and were recorded in the Surgical Outcomes Collaborative registry as having either died in the hospital or survived to discharge as of March 28, 2020. Results Of the 8910 patients with Covid-19 for whom discharge status was available at the time of the analysis, a total of 515 died in the hospital (5.8%) and 8395 survived to discharge. The factors we found to be independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death were an age greater than 65 years (mortality of 10.0%, vs. 4.9% among those ≤65 years of age; odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60 to 2.41), coronary artery disease (10.2%, vs. 5.2% among those without disease; odds ratio, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.08 to 3.51), heart failure (15.3%, vs. 5.6% among those without heart failure; odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.62 to 3.79), cardiac arrhythmia (11.5%, vs. 5.6% among those without arrhythmia; odds ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.86), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14.2%, vs. 5.6% among those without disease; odds ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 2.00 to 4.40), and current smoking (9.4%, vs. 5.6% among former smokers or nonsmokers; odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.47). No increased risk of in-hospital death was found to be associated with the use of ACE inhibitors (2.1% vs. 6.1%; odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.54) or the use of ARBs (6.8% vs. 5.7%; odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.74). Conclusions Our study confirmed previous observations suggesting that underlying cardiovascular disease is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death among patients hospitalized with Covid-19. Our results did not confirm previous concerns regarding a potential harmful association of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with in-hospital death in this clinical context. (Funded by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                6 October 2020
                2020
                6 October 2020
                : 15
                : 10
                : e0240011
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
                [2 ] Graduate School of Public Health & Health Policy, City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, United States of America
                [3 ] Department of Social and Political Science, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy
                [4 ] University of Global Health Equity, Kigali, Rwanda
                [5 ] Emerson College, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
                [6 ] London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
                [7 ] Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
                Tulane University, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9618-2299
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6779-3151
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9538-9220
                Article
                PONE-D-20-22915
                10.1371/journal.pone.0240011
                7538106
                33022023
                c3632e95-6910-4e1d-9806-8f039ee21d02
                © 2020 Lazarus et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 25 July 2020
                : 17 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004870, Research Foundation of The City University of New York;
                Award ID: 90057-00-99
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100006375, Università Bocconi;
                Funding for this international study was made possible by unrestricted grants from the research foundation budget of the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. In addition, grants were received from Dr. Jonathan Fielding, the United States Council for International Business Foundation, Dr. Kenneth Rabin and Bocconi University (Italy). The authors are solely responsible for all content, and non-authoring funders played no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Virus Testing
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Socioeconomic Aspects of Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Socioeconomic Aspects of Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Global Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Behavioral and Social Aspects of Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article