Display options
Cite
Heanoy EZ, Nadler EH, Lorrain D, et al. Exploring People's Reaction and Perceived Issues of the COVID-19 Pandemic at Its Onset. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(20)doi: 10.3390/ijerph182010796.
Heanoy, E. Z., Nadler, E. H., Lorrain, D., & Brown, N. R. (2021). Exploring People's Reaction and Perceived Issues of the COVID-19 Pandemic at Its Onset. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(20), . https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010796
Heanoy, Eamin Z, et al. "Exploring People's Reaction and Perceived Issues of the COVID-19 Pandemic at Its Onset." International journal of environmental research and public health vol. 18,20 (2021). doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010796
Heanoy EZ, Nadler EH, Lorrain D, Brown NR. Exploring People's Reaction and Perceived Issues of the COVID-19 Pandemic at Its Onset. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 14;18(20). doi: 10.3390/ijerph182010796. PMID: 34682542; PMCID: PMC8535849.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 14;18(20). doi: 10.3390/ijerph182010796.

Exploring People's Reaction and Perceived Issues of the COVID-19 Pandemic at Its Onset.

International journal of environmental research and public health

Eamin Z Heanoy, Ezra H Nadler, Dominic Lorrain, Norman R Brown

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada.
  2. Arts and Science Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.

PMID: 34682542 PMCID: PMC8535849 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182010796

Abstract

The experience of the COVID-19 Pandemic has varied considerably from individual-to-individual. Little is known about the changes in the level of experience general people went through during the first few months after the coronavirus (COVID-19) was declared as a Pandemic. This longitudinal qualitative study explores the general public's reports of their experience with the COVID-19 Pandemic during its early stage. An online survey was conducted using a convenience/snowball sampling technique in March and again in May 2020, where North American adults with at least a college-degree, and female majority, shared their experiences with the COVID-19 Pandemic in response to an open-ended question, apart from completing questionnaires assessing transitional impact and psychological well-being. Open responses were first content analyzed to identify themes most commonly reported, and then, the quantitative analysis examined the reliability of the changes of themes between the two-time points. Text-analysis of the open-responses from the two waves identified seven themes, namely emotional response, social contact, virus-infected, financial impact, impact on plans, disease, and non-disease related concern, as well as social-distance. These themes indicated that, (a) people were distressed and having negative affective thoughts; (b) they spoke more about their plans-and-goals that were affected by the Pandemic than their financial condition; (c) people mostly used digital platforms to maintain contact with their social network, although they preferred face-to-face interactions; (d) they spoke more about the infection experienced by people in general than infection experienced by themselves and individuals they know. Surprisingly, (e) people mentioned more about the way the Pandemic had disrupted their day-to-day activities than the disease-related health concern. Finally, (f) most of the respondents approved of the practice of social distancing while some expressed its negative or neutral effect on their social lives. The quantitative measure determined that as time passed, people's experience with the Pandemic became quite different as people talked more about getting infected, and their affected goals-and-plans. We concluded with a remark that this Pandemic would most likely leave an impression on people's lives and that these online comment-style responses might provide us with insights into people's perspectives as the Pandemic unfolds, helping us in understanding the uniqueness of the Pandemic experience of individuals for an effective tailored intervention to protect their well-being during a health-crisis.

Keywords: COVID-19; multi-wave; online comments; qualitative; well-being

References

  1. Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):514-523 - PubMed
  2. BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Oct 7;20(1):494 - PubMed
  3. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jul;289:113098 - PubMed
  4. Infection. 2020 Apr;48(2):155-163 - PubMed
  5. Cognition. 2021 Jul;212:104694 - PubMed
  6. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021 Jan 18;76(2):e24-e29 - PubMed
  7. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 May 25;17(10): - PubMed
  8. Health Technol Assess. 2010 Jul;14(34):183-266 - PubMed
  9. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1978 Oct;46(5):932-46 - PubMed
  10. Psychiatry Res. 2020 May;287:112921 - PubMed
  11. J Psychosom Res. 1967 Aug;11(2):213-8 - PubMed
  12. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020 Apr;74(4):281-282 - PubMed
  13. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Sep 3;22(9):e21279 - PubMed
  14. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Nov 09;11:565474 - PubMed
  15. Front Psychol. 2021 Jan 08;11:607976 - PubMed
  16. BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Oct 6;20(1):489 - PubMed
  17. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Aug;88:17-27 - PubMed
  18. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733 - PubMed
  19. Int Emerg Nurs. 2013 Oct;21(4):240-6 - PubMed
  20. Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88 - PubMed
  21. Global Health. 2020 Jul 6;16(1):57 - PubMed
  22. J Psychosom Res. 2010 Feb;68(2):195-202 - PubMed
  23. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020 Jun;51:101990 - PubMed
  24. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 27;382(9):872-874 - PubMed
  25. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008 Sep-Oct;30(5):446-52 - PubMed
  26. Br J Educ Psychol. 2020 Dec;90(4):1062-1083 - PubMed
  27. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2021 Mar;67(2):158-167 - PubMed
  28. Behav Res Methods. 2014 Jun;46(2):448-55 - PubMed
  29. Am J Psychol. 2016 Sep;129:259-282 - PubMed
  30. Gen Psychiatr. 2020 Mar 6;33(2):e100213 - PubMed
  31. AIDS Behav. 2015 Jul;19(7):1275-87 - PubMed
  32. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:29-45 - PubMed
  33. Reprod Health. 2020 Jul 8;17(1):108 - PubMed
  34. Am J Infect Control. 2020 Jun;48(6):592-598 - PubMed
  35. Psychosom Med. 1971 Mar-Apr;33(2):115-22 - PubMed
  36. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2002 Apr;36(2):173-82 - PubMed
  37. PLoS One. 2011 Apr 18;6(4):e18479 - PubMed
  38. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Aug;88:916-919 - PubMed
  39. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2020 Sep;142(3):249-256 - PubMed
  40. Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Mar 1;94(3):210-4 - PubMed
  41. Psychol Trauma. 2020 Aug;12(S1):S17-S21 - PubMed
  42. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 06;17(5): - PubMed
  43. Gerontologist. 2021 Jan 21;61(1):36-47 - PubMed
  44. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Nov;57(11):857-63 - PubMed
  45. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:40-48 - PubMed
  46. Psychol Trauma. 2020 Jul;12(5):465-467 - PubMed
  47. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020 Jun;66(4):317-320 - PubMed
  48. Mem Cognit. 2017 Nov;45(8):1335-1349 - PubMed
  49. JAMA. 2020 Jul 7;324(1):93-94 - PubMed
  50. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Mar;7(3):228-229 - PubMed
  51. BJPsych Bull. 2021 Apr;45(2):93-97 - PubMed
  52. Ann Fam Med. 2015 Nov;13(6):554-61 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support