Background:The absence of effective antiviral medications and vaccines increased the focus on non-pharmaceutical preventive behaviors for mitigating against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To examine the current status of non-pharmaceutical preventive behaviors practiced during the COVID-19 outbreak and factors affecting behavioral activities, we compared to the 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak in Korea. Methods: This was a serial cross-sectional population-based study in Korea with four surveys conducted on June 2 and 25, 2015 (MERS-CoV surveys), and February 4, and April 2, 2020 (COVID-19 surveys). Of 25,711 participants selected using random digit dialing numbers, 4,011 participants (aged ≥ 18 years) were successfully interviewed, for the 2020 COVID-19 (n = 2,002) and 2015 MERS-CoV (n = 2,009) epidemics were included. Participants were selected poststratification by sex, age, and province. The total number of weighted cases in this survey equaled the total number of unweighted cases at the national level. We measured the levels of preventive behaviors (social distancing [avoiding physical contact with others]), and practicing transmissionreducing behaviors such as wearing face mask and handwashing. Results: Between the surveys, respondents who reported practicing social distancing increased from 41.9%-58.2% (MERS-CoV) to 83.4%-92.3% (COVID-19). The response rate for the four surveys ranged between 13.7% and 17.7%. Practicing transmission-reducing behaviors (wearing face masks and handwashing) at least once during COVID-19 (78.8%, 80.2%) also increased compared to that during MERS-CoV (15.5%, 60.3%). The higher affective risk perception groups were more likely to practice transmission-reducing measures (adjusted odds ratio, 3.24-4.81; 95 confidence interval, 1.76-6.96) during both COVID-19 and MERS-CoV. Conclusion:The study findings suggest markedly increased proportions of nonpharmaceutical behavioral practices evenly across all subgroups during the two different novel virus outbreaks in Korea. Strategic interventions are needed to attempt based on preventive behavior works.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the affective and cognitive risk perceptions in the general population of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) during the 2015 MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak in South Korea and the influencing factors.DesignSerial cross-sectional design with four consecutive surveys.SettingNationwide general population in South Korea.ParticipantsOverall 4010 respondents (aged 19 years and over) from the general population during the MERS-CoV epidemic were included.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were (1) affective risk perception, (2) cognitive risk perception, and (3) trust in the government. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors (demographic, socioeconomic, area and political orientation) associated with risk perceptions.ResultsBoth affective and cognitive risk perceptions decreased as the MERS-CoV epidemic progressed. Proportions of affective risk perception were higher in all surveys and slowly decreased compared with cognitive risk perception over time. Females (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.72–2.00; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.86) and lower self-reported household economic status respondents were more likely to perceive the affective risk. The older the adults, the higher the affective risk perception, but the lower the cognitive risk perception compared with younger adults. The respondents who had low trust in the government had higher affective (aOR 2.19–3.11; 95 CI 1.44 to 4.67) and cognitive (aOR 3.55–5.41; 95 CI 1.44 to 9.01) risk perceptions.ConclusionsThis study suggests that even if cognitive risk perception is dissolved, affective risk perception can continue during MERS-CoV epidemic. Risk perception associating factors (ie, gender, age and self-reported household economic status) appear to be noticeably different between affective and cognitive dimensions. It also indicates that trust in the government influences affective risk perception and cognitive risk perception. There is a need for further efforts to understand the mechanism regarding the general public’s risk perception for effective risk communication.

This study examined the public’s preventive behavioral responses during the 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak in Korea and the influencing factors. Two cross-sectional telephone surveys were conducted by Gallup Korea using random digit dialing in June 2015 (n = 2004). The main outcome variables were nonpharmaceutical preventive measures (survey (1): Measures for reducing transmission (handwashing, face masks); and survey (2): Measures for avoiding contact with others). Multiple logistic regression was used to identify the factors influencing preventive behaviors. In survey (1), 60.3% of respondents reported more frequent handwashing and 15.5% reported wearing face masks at least once due to the MERS-CoV epidemic. In survey (2), 41–56% of respondents reported practicing avoidance measures. The concerned group was more likely to practice reducing transmission measures (odds ratio (OR) 4.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3–6.1) and avoidance measures (OR = 9.6; 95% CI, 6.4–14.4). The respondents who had low trust in president or ruling party had a higher practice rate of reducing transmission measures (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2–2.6) and avoidance measures (OR = 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2–3.5). Cooperative prevention measures need appropriated public concern based on effective risk communication.

This study aimed to assess the correlation between political ideologies, government trust, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in South Korea during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among South Korea’s general population and 1000 respondents (aged 18 years and older) were included. We used multivariate logistic regression models to identify the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Respondents who self-identified as liberal or held “no political opinion” had higher rates of vaccine hesitancy than conservative respondents. People’s trust in the government’s countermeasures was associated with vaccination. Respondents who had risk perceptions (affective and cognitive) of COVID-19 had lower rates of vaccine hesitancy. Perceptions that the vaccine was not safe and being aged 18–29, 30–39, or 40–49 were associated with a higher probability of vaccine hesitancy. This study found that even if vaccine safety and risk perceptions toward COVID-19 were adjusted, self-rated political ideologies and government trust was associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. More effort to communicate with those who are conservative, younger, and have lower level of trust in the government are required to dissolve vaccine hesitancy. Further studies should analyze the mechanism of COVID-19 vaccine uptake for effective herd immunity.

Risk perception research, targeting the general public, necessitates the study of the multi-faceted aspects of perceived risk through a holistic approach. This study aimed to investigate the association between the two dimensions of risk perception of COVID-19, i.e., risk as a feeling and analysis, trust in the current government, political ideologies, and socio-demographic factors in South Korea. This study used a year-long repeated cross-sectional design, in which a national sample (n = 23,018) participated in 23 consecutive telephone surveys from February 2020 to February 2021. Most factors differed in the magnitude and direction of their relationships with the two dimensions of risk perception. However, trust in the current government, alone, delineated an association in the same direction for both dimensions, i.e., those with a lower level of trust exhibited higher levels of cognitive and affective risk perception. Although these results did not change significantly during the one-year observation period, they are related to the political interpretation of risk. This study revealed that affective and cognitive risk perceptions addressed different dimensions of risk perception. These findings could help governments and health authorities better understand the nature and mechanisms of public risk perception when implementing countermeasures and policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies.