Cohort profile: The Corona Behavioural Unit COVID-19 cohort, a longitudinal mixed-methods study on COVID-19-related behaviour, well-being and policy support in the Netherlands

Boom, Wijnand van den; Dijk, Mart van; Snijders, Bianca E.P.; Luijben, Guus; Laan, Jan Van Der; Euser, Saskia; Sanders, Jet; Buitenhuis, Anne H.; Spruijt, Pita; Kroese, Floor M.; Lambooij, Mattijs; Muhren, Yvette; Tak, Nannah; Swaluw, Koen van der; Rossum, Caroline van; Nielen, Thijs; Elberse, Janneke; Renes, Reint Jan; Leurs, Mariken; Bruin, Marijn de

doi:10.31219/osf.io/drvq9

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of differences in perceived trade-offs in understanding differences in support for mitigation measures is underscored by experimental research (3,14), as well as population surveys of population support showing that support for COVID-19 mitigation is lower and decreases when people more strongly believe that economic, educational, and social costs are insufficiently weighed (5,6). Further evidence for the importance of potential benefits and costs in understanding differences in support for mitigation measures is provided by research that found that more support for and adherence to COVID-19 mitigation measures is associated with a higher perceived need for such measures (20), as indicated by concern about COVID-19 (11), experienced public health danger or personal health threat of COVID-19 (8,10,12), or perceived health risks of COVID-19 to self or important others (5-7). In addition, research reporting associations between support for mitigation measures and trust, including in governments, science, and pharmaceutical companies (4-6), suggests that differences in support between population subgroups may reflect differences in social trust between these groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pandemic fatigue is noted to have gained prominence as an explanation of a decline in following the rules to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (19). However, its occurrence is contested (19)(20)(21). We found two studies that explicitly aimed to assessed evidence of pandemic fatigue based on trends in adherence to COVID-19 mitigation measures, of which one did not find the continual gradual decrease in adherence (17).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The importance of longer-term follow-up over multiple assessments to assess pandemic fatigue is underscored by a multi-country study (17), which noted a rebound in support for social distancing measures over a longer period. This may reflect the noted importance of the evolving health threat of COVID-19 in understanding changing patterns of support (20), echoed by evidence that the perceived health risk (5) or general threat (8) of COVID-19 is associated with continued support for mitigation measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding public support for COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures over time: Does it wear out?

Wit

Ridder

Boom

et al. 2023

Front. Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCOVID-19 mitigation measures intend to protect public health, but their adverse psychological, social, and economic effects weaken public support. Less favorable trade-offs may especially weaken support for more restrictive measures. Support for mitigation measures may also differ between population subgroups who experience different benefits and costs, and decrease over time, a phenomenon termed “pandemic fatigue.”MethodsWe examined self-reported support for COVID-19 mitigation measures in the Netherlands over 12 consecutives waves of data collection between April 2020 and May 2021 in an open population cohort study. Participants were recruited through community panels of the 25 regional public health services, and through links to the online surveys advertised on social media. The 54,010 unique participants in the cohort study on average participated in 4 waves of data collection. Most participants were female (65%), middle-aged [57% (40–69 years)], highly educated (57%), not living alone (84%), residing in an urban area (60%), and born in the Netherlands (95%).ResultsCOVID-19 mitigation measures implemented in the Netherlands remained generally well-supported over time [all scores >3 on 5-point scale ranging 1 (low)−5 (high)]. During the whole period studied, support was highest for personal hygiene measures, quarantine and wearing face masks, high but somewhat lower for not shaking hands, testing and self-isolation, and restricting social contacts, and lowest for limiting visitors at home, and not traveling abroad. Women and higher educated people were more supportive of some mitigation measures than men and lower educated people. Older people were more supportive of more restrictive measures than younger people, and support for more socially restrictive measures decreased most over time in higher educated people or in younger people.ConclusionsThis study found no support for pandemic fatigue in terms of a gradual decline in support for all mitigation measures in the first year of the pandemic. Rather, findings suggest that support for mitigation measures reflects a balancing of benefits and cost, which may change over time, and differ between measures and population subgroups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding public support for COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures over time: Does it wear out?

Wit

Ridder

Boom

et al. 2023

Front. Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In April 2020, which corresponded with the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands, the Corona Behavioral Unit at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, the Netherlands, launched a dynamic cohort study to monitor the Dutch population, including the well-being of people over time. 21 We invited the participants of existing panels of the 25 regional Public Health Services in the Netherlands to participate in a survey. To compensate for dropout, for several rounds we recruited additional respondents.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

General Mental Health, Loneliness, and Life Satisfaction in the Context of COVID-19 Policies: A 2-Year Cohort Study in the Netherlands, April 2020–January 2022

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has affected mental health, understanding who has been affected most and why is incomplete. We sought to understand changes in mental health in the context of transmission numbers and pandemic (social) restrictions and whether changes in mental health varied among population groups. Methods: We analyzed data from 92 062 people (aged ≥16 years and able to read Dutch) who participated in the Corona Behavioral Unit cohort study at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, the Netherlands, from April 17, 2020, through January 25, 2022. Participants self-reported mental well-being through multiple rounds of surveys. We used a multivariable linear mixed-effects model to analyze loneliness, general mental health, and life satisfaction. Results: As strictness of pandemic prevention measures and social restrictions increased, people’s feelings of loneliness increased and mental health and life satisfaction decreased. As restrictions were relaxed, loneliness decreased and general mental health improved. Younger people (aged 16-24 y) versus older people (aged ≥40 y), people with low (vs high) education levels, and people living alone (vs living together) were more likely to have negative well-being outcomes. We observed that trajectories over time differed considerably only by age, with participants aged 16-24 years affected substantially more than participants aged ≥40 years by pandemic social restrictions. These patterns were consistent across multiple waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the social restrictions imposed by the Dutch government during the study period were associated with reduced mental well-being, especially among younger people. However, people appeared resilient as they recovered during periods when restrictions were relaxed. Monitoring and supporting well-being, in particular to reduce loneliness, may help younger people during periods of intense social restrictions.

show abstract

“…We used data from the Corona Behaviour & Well-being cohort study, a dynamic cohort study conducted between April 2020 and September 2022 among the Dutch population by the Behavioural Unit of the National Institute for Public Health and The Environment (RIVM). More information about the cohort study is available in a cohort profile (van den Boom et al, 2022). We selected five rounds that strongly differed with respect to the severity of the Covid-19 situation as well as the vaccination rate, to represent the different stages of the pandemic in the Netherlands.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Context Matters: Patterns in physical distancing behaviour across situations and over time during the Covid-19 pandemic in the Netherlands

Bussemakers¹,

Dijk²,

Putte³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Physical distancing is an effective preventative measure during respiratory infectious disease outbreaks. Prior studies on distancing behaviours have largely ignored context characteristics (physical, social) and time. We investigated patterns in physical distancing over time and across situations, as well as sociodemographic variation herein. Methods: We employed data from five rounds of a cohort study conducted throughout the pandemic by the Dutch public health institute (RIVM; N≈50.000 per round). We conducted Latent Class Analyses (LCAs) to investigate patterns of physical distancing in a range of situations, followed by regression models to investigate associations between distancing behaviour and sociodemographic and context characteristics. Results: Participants differed in their general tendency to adhere to distancing guidelines across situations, but there were also substantial differences in distancing behaviour between situations, particularly at work, with friends and family and outdoors. Distancing at work was strongly associated with work environment characteristics. Younger age groups reported less distancing behaviour, particularly with close relations (friends or family) and at work. In periods when the pandemic situation was most severe, people adhered more strongly to distancing guidelines and age-differences were most pronounced during these periods. Conclusion: Physical and social context matters for physical distancing, highlighting the importance of developing strategies for pandemic preparedness that improve opportunities for physical distancing (e.g., reducing crowding, 1-way traffic) and accommodate young people to safely meet even in times of high pandemic severity and lockdowns. Future studies on distancing should account for the physical and social context in which the behaviour is observed.

show abstract

Cohort profile: The Corona Behavioural Unit COVID-19 cohort, a longitudinal mixed-methods study on COVID-19-related behaviour, well-being and policy support in the Netherlands

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Understanding public support for COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures over time: Does it wear out?

Understanding public support for COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures over time: Does it wear out?

General Mental Health, Loneliness, and Life Satisfaction in the Context of COVID-19 Policies: A 2-Year Cohort Study in the Netherlands, April 2020–January 2022

Context Matters: Patterns in physical distancing behaviour across situations and over time during the Covid-19 pandemic in the Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About