Public acceptance of COVID-19 control measures and associated factors during Omicron-dominant period in China: a cross-sectional survey.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 100968562 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1471-2458 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14712458 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Public Health Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2001-
    • Subject Terms:
      COVID-19*/epidemiology ; COVID-19*/prevention & control ; Communicable Disease Control*; Humans ; China/epidemiology ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Patient Compliance
    • Abstract:
      Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the public acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) control measures during the Omicron-dominant period and its associated factors.
      Methods: A cross-sectional design was conducted and 1391 study participants were openly recruited to participate in the questionnaire survey. Logistic regression model was performed to assess the association between the public acceptance and potential factors more specifically.
      Results: By August 26, 2022, 58.9% of the study participants were less acceptive of the control measures while 41.1% expressed higher acceptance. Factors associated with lower acceptance included young age, such as < 18 (OR = 8.251, 95% CI: 2.009 to 33.889) and 18-29 (OR = 2.349, 95% CI: 1.564 to 3.529), and household per capita monthly income lower than 5000 yuan (OR = 1.512, 95% CI: 1.085 to 2.105). Furthermore, individuals who perceived that the case fatality rate (CFR) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was very low (OR = 6.010, 95% CI: 2.475 to 14.595) and that the restrictions could be eased once the CFR dropped to 2-3 times of the influenza (OR = 2.792, 95% CI: 1.939 to 4.023) showed greater oppositional attitudes. Likewise, respondents who were dissatisfied with control measures (OR = 9.639, 95% CI: 4.425 to 20.998) or preferred fully relaxation as soon as possible (OR = 13.571, 95% CI: 7.751 to 23.758) had even lower acceptability. By contrast, rural residents (OR = 0.683, 95% CI: 0.473 to 0.987), students (OR = 0.510, 95% CI: 0.276 to 0.941), public (OR = 0.417, 95% CI: 0.240 to 0.727) and private (OR = 0.562, 95% CI: 0.320 to 0.986) employees, and vaccinated participants (OR = 0.393, 95% CI: 0.204 to 0.756) were more compliant with control measures.
      Conclusion: More than half of the Chinese public were less supportive of COVID-19 control measures during Omicron-dominant period, which varied based on their different demographic characteristics, cognition and overall attitude towards SARS-CoV-2 infection. Control measures that struck a balance between public safety and individual freedom would be more acceptable during the pandemic.
      (© 2024. The Author(s).)
    • References:
      J Korean Med Sci. 2022 Feb 14;37(6):e49. (PMID: 35166085)
      Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Feb 18;18(4):. (PMID: 33670821)
      Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 22;19(9):. (PMID: 35564482)
      J Community Health. 2021 Apr;46(2):286-291. (PMID: 32757087)
      Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022 Dec;11(1):1-5. (PMID: 34890524)
      Trop Med Infect Dis. 2023 Jan 05;8(1):. (PMID: 36668946)
      Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2022 Oct 13;17:e330. (PMID: 36226567)
      Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Aug;121:195-202. (PMID: 35584743)
      JMIRx Med. 2022 May 13;3(2):e32859. (PMID: 35648730)
      Lancet. 2021 Dec 11;398(10317):2126-2128. (PMID: 34871545)
      Psychol Rep. 2023 Aug;126(4):1684-1700. (PMID: 35324356)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Dec;49(12):1373-9. (PMID: 8970487)
      Int J Psychol. 2021 Aug;56(4):551-565. (PMID: 33118180)
      Front Public Health. 2022 Nov 03;10:999795. (PMID: 36408032)
      Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Jul;120:51-58. (PMID: 35430376)
      BMJ. 2022 Mar 31;376:o859. (PMID: 35361680)
      Int J Gen Med. 2021 May 31;14:2161-2170. (PMID: 34103971)
      Science. 2022 May 6;376(6593):eabn4947. (PMID: 35289632)
      Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2022 Mar 05;15:389-401. (PMID: 35283653)
      Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Jul;120:146-149. (PMID: 35462038)
      Digit Health. 2021 Mar 23;7:20552076211002953. (PMID: 33815815)
      BMC Psychol. 2022 Dec 17;10(1):313. (PMID: 36528775)
      PLoS One. 2020 May 21;15(5):e0233668. (PMID: 32437434)
      Int J Biol Sci. 2020 Mar 15;16(10):1745-1752. (PMID: 32226294)
      Pan Afr Med J. 2021 Dec 15;40:225. (PMID: 35145587)
      Z Gesundh Wiss. 2021 Aug 14;:1-15. (PMID: 34414065)
      Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2023 Feb;64(1):1-16. (PMID: 34536214)
      Front Public Health. 2023 Apr 17;11:1121846. (PMID: 37139394)
      China CDC Wkly. 2021 Oct 8;3(41):863-868. (PMID: 34703643)
      Science. 2022 Apr 22;376(6591):333-334. (PMID: 35446660)
      Circulation. 2002 Aug 20;106(8):939-44. (PMID: 12186797)
      Child Youth Serv Rev. 2021 Jan;120:105784. (PMID: 33311825)
    • Grant Information:
      2022A1515011012 Guangdong Natural Science Foundation Project
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: COVID-19; Control measures; Omicron variant; Public acceptance; Public health strategy; Vaccination
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20240221 Date Completed: 20240223 Latest Revision: 20240224
    • Publication Date:
      20240224
    • Accession Number:
      PMC10882874
    • Accession Number:
      10.1186/s12889-024-17646-3
    • Accession Number:
      38383375