Perceived efficacy of COVID-19 restrictions, reactions and their impact on mental health during the early phase of the outbreak in six countries

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic forced millions of people to drastically change their social life habits as governments employed harsh restrictions to reduce the spread of the virus. Although beneficial to physical health, the perception of physical distancing and related restrictions could impact mental health. In a pre-registered online survey, we assessed how effective a range of restrictions were perceived, how severely they affected daily life, general distress and paranoia during the early phase of the outbreak in Brazil, Colombia, Germany, Israel, Norway and USA. Most of our over 2000 respondents rated the restrictions as effective. School closings were perceived as having the strongest effect on daily life. Participants who believed their country reacted too mildly perceived the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 to be higher, were more worried and expressed reduced beliefs in the ability to control the outbreak. Relatedly, dissatisfaction with governmental reactions corresponded with increased distress levels. Together, we found that satisfaction with one's governmental reactions and fear appraisal play an important role in assessing the efficacy of restrictions during the pandemic and their related psychological outcomes. These findings inform policy-makers on the psychological factors that strengthen resilience and foster the well-being of citizens in times of global crisis.

Risk Perception and Media in Shaping Protective Behaviors: Insights From the Early Phase of COVID-19 Italian Outbreak

“…Interestingly, our participants significantly reported both higher response-and self-efficacy for COVID-19 compared to flu (small to medium effect sizes) and rated themselves more efficient in preventing the diseases (self-efficacy) compared to other people (responseefficacy) for both the viruses, although for SARS-CoV-2, we detected a trivial effect (d = 0.05). These results may indicate an "optimistic bias, " i.e., the illusion of being less at risk than others from adverse events and illness, as previously found for COVID-19 (Dolinski et al, 2020) and in line with results detected in different countries comparing own to others' efficacy (Maekelae et al, 2020). From an overall perspective, most of the participants (∼60%) were confident that both themselves and other people can take effective actions to prevent COVID-19 in case of an outbreak.…”

“…Perceived efficacy identifies another relevant predictor of protective motivation (Rogers, 1983;Floyd et al, 2000;Witte and Allen, 2000): in our sample, higher COVID-19 response-and selfefficacy were related to a higher perceived utility of containment measures, as found in recent data on worldwide pandemic (Dryhurst et al, 2020;Maekelae et al, 2020). Interestingly, our participants significantly reported both higher response-and self-efficacy for COVID-19 compared to flu (small to medium effect sizes) and rated themselves more efficient in preventing the diseases (self-efficacy) compared to other people (responseefficacy) for both the viruses, although for SARS-CoV-2, we detected a trivial effect (d = 0.05).…”

Behavioral measures to fight COVID-19: An 8-country study of perceived usefulness, adherence and their predictors

“…This can reduce the feeling of being left alone during the pandemic. Overall, it can enhance the trust in and the satisfaction with the governmental actions which both are important predictors of adherence to the measures [41,56].…”

“…And it can increase the positive evaluation of the governmental reactions during the pandemic outbreak. In a further recently published study that investigated data from Brazil, Colombia, Germany, Israel, Norway, and the U.S., the individual satisfaction with the governmental reactions during the pandemic significantly predicted the perception of efficacy of the introduced restrictions [41]. Thus, it is assumed that the perception of constructive public communication by government and authorities predicts a higher usefulness evaluation of the measures and greater adherence.…”

A longitudinal study on the COVID-19 pandemic and its divergent effects on social participation and mental health across different study groups with and without mental disorders

“…the extent to which the population was affected by the pandemic including the number of infections or related deaths, the severity of the measures taken by the government or the capacity of the health care system. For example, in a multinational study conducted at a relatively early stage of the pandemic, participants who were dissatisfied with the measures of their government reported higher worries and fears that were in turn related to experiencing more distress [ 13 ]. Similarly, trust in governmental actions to tackle COVID-19 was negatively associated with psychological distress as well as generalised anxiety and depression symptoms in a large German sample [ 14 ].…”