5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Political party affiliation, social identity cues, and attitudes about protective mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study aimed to determine 1) whether German citizens’ adherence to health professionals’ recommendations and mandates regarding protective masks during the COVID-19 pandemic varied according to their political party affiliations, and 2) how behavioral cues provided by members of shared social groups, such as family and friends, influenced individual mask-wearing behavior. A quota-based sample of German voters (n = 330) consisting of 55 citizens whose voting intentions aligned with each of the country’s six main political parties responded to an online questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Univariate descriptive statistical analyses of quantitative data were conducted, and multiple regressions were performed to determine log odds and significant variations among group-based responses. A pragmatic inductive coding process was used to conduct a thematic analysis of qualitative data. Results indicated that those participants who expressed an intention to vote for the populist radical right party were the least likely to follow health experts’ recommendations and the most likely to express anger and dissatisfaction over mask mandates. Prospective Left Party voters were the most likely to adhere to the advice of their doctors, while those associated with the Green Party were the most likely to adhere to the advice of public health experts. Most survey participants reported aligning their mask-wearing behavior with that of family and friends, with prospective CDU/CSU voters particularly likely to consider the mask-wearing behavior of family members. The results indicate that public health officials should consider how group-related factors influence public health compliance in order to encourage protective mask-wearing in the future.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

          Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Social categorization and intergroup behaviour

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review

              Background Accurate assessment is required to assess current and changing physical activity levels, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase activity levels. This study systematically reviewed the literature to determine the extent of agreement between subjectively (self-report e.g. questionnaire, diary) and objectively (directly measured; e.g. accelerometry, doubly labeled water) assessed physical activity in adults. Methods Eight electronic databases were searched to identify observational and experimental studies of adult populations. Searching identified 4,463 potential articles. Initial screening found that 293 examined the relationship between self-reported and directly measured physical activity and met the eligibility criteria. Data abstraction was completed for 187 articles, which described comparable data and/or comparisons, while 76 articles lacked comparable data or comparisons, and a further 30 did not meet the review's eligibility requirements. A risk of bias assessment was conducted for all articles from which data was abstracted. Results Correlations between self-report and direct measures were generally low-to-moderate and ranged from -0.71 to 0.96. No clear pattern emerged for the mean differences between self-report and direct measures of physical activity. Trends differed by measure of physical activity employed, level of physical activity measured, and the gender of participants. Results of the risk of bias assessment indicated that 38% of the studies had lower quality scores. Conclusion The findings suggest that the measurement method may have a significant impact on the observed levels of physical activity. Self-report measures of physical activity were both higher and lower than directly measured levels of physical activity, which poses a problem for both reliance on self-report measures and for attempts to correct for self-report – direct measure differences. This review reveals the need for valid, accurate and reliable measures of physical activity in evaluating current and changing physical activity levels, physical activity interventions, and the relationships between physical activity and health outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                6 June 2024
                2024
                : 19
                : 6
                : e0302399
                Affiliations
                [001] Institute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
                University of Haifa, ISRAEL
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4355-0480
                Article
                PONE-D-23-35685
                10.1371/journal.pone.0302399
                11156322
                38843142
                819124e8-02c9-442a-b305-69ae62504663
                © 2024 Magnus et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 2 November 2023
                : 28 March 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 6, Pages: 20
                Funding
                Funded by: Jaekel-Stiftung GmbH
                Award ID: T0418/40031/2022
                Award Recipient :
                This study was supported by the German foundation center “Jaekel-Stiftung GmbH”, project number T0418/40031/2022. The grant was received by KDM. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Social Sciences
                Political Science
                Governments
                Political Parties
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                People and places
                Geographical locations
                Europe
                European Union
                Germany
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Behavioral and Social Aspects of Health
                Social Sciences
                Political Science
                Political Aspects of Health
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are withing the manuscript and its Supporting Information files and/or available from https://osf.io/h2p8q/?view_only=508905514a2a42cdb88aafc451971981.
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content56

                Most referenced authors757