Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38733243›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

From polarity to plurality: Perceptions of COVID-19 and policy measures in England and Scotland.

Jack Rendall, Neil McHugh, Rachel Baker, Helen Mason, Olga Biosca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. From polarity to plurality: Perceptions of COVID-19 and policy measures in England and Scotland.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  2. From Polarity to Plurality: Perceptions of COVID-19 and Policy Measures in England and Scotland.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jack RendallThe Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8973-4152
Neil McHughThe Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Rachel BakerThe Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3451-2018
Helen MasonThe Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Olga BioscaThe Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/V01532X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study was to uncover perspectives on the COVID-19 pandemic and the responses implemented by the UK and Scottish Governments to help control the spread of infection. Such understanding could help to inform future responses to pandemics at individual, community and national levels.

methodQ methodology was used to elicit perspectives from people in England and Scotland with different experiences of the pandemic including public health officials, key workers, those on furlough, those who were unvaccinated or vaccinated to different levels, those who were 'shielding' because they were at higher risk and people with different scientific expertise. Participants rank-ordered phrases about different aspects of COVID-19 according to their viewpoint. Factor analysis was then conducted in conjunction with interview material from the same respondents.

resultsA four-factor solution was statistically supported and was interpretable alongside the qualitative accounts of participants loading on these factors. These four perspectives are titled Dangerous and Unaccountable Leadership, Fear and Anger at Policy and Public responses, Governing Through a Crisis and Injustices Exposed.

conclusionThe four perspectives demonstrate plurality and nuance in views on COVID-19 and the associated policies and restrictions, going beyond a binary narrative that has been apparent in popular and social media. The four perspectives include some areas of common ground, as well as disagreement. We argue that understanding the detail of different perspectives might be used to build cohesion around policy initiatives in future. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The development of the statement set, which is rank-ordered by participants in a Q study, and factor interpretations were informed by views of the general public. The statement set was initially developed using existing publicly available material based on members of the general public experiencing the pandemic first hand. It was then piloted with members of the public experiencing different challenges as a result of COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown and updated based on feedback. Finally, interpretations of the identified factors were presented publicly and edited according to their feedback.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health PolicyEnglandFearFemaleHumansMalePandemicsQualitative ResearchSARS-CoV-2ScotlandCOVID‐19pluralitypolarisationpublic perceptionsQ methodology

Identifiers

PMID38733243
PMCPMC11087883

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.