4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Risk perception of COVID-19: A comparative analysis of China and South Korea

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has become a pandemic and the risk perception plays an important role in self-protection and spread prevention. This study attempts to explore the intrinsic characteristic of risk perception and the spatial distribution of it, which have not been involved in previous studies. To attach this purpose, data from questionnaire conducted in China and Korea (samples of 897 respondents in China and 340 respondents in South Korea) are used to produce risk perception of COVID- 19. Results reveal four principal findings: (1) risk perception of COVID-19 can be categorized into perceived social risk and perceived risk of being infected; (2) the internal differences are most pronounced in perceived risk of being infected about oneself in China, and in perceived social risk disorder about local community in South Korea; (3) the spatial distribution of risk perception is not consistent with that of epidemic severity, for high-risk perception spread out beyond the epicenter with different performance in the two categories; and (4) among the influence factors, trust in information, familiarity with epidemic situation, and interpersonal distance from suffers in the epicenter are found to have a significant influence on different aspects of risk perception. The theoretical and practical implications of this study enrich the understanding of risk perception of epidemic, and provide specific suggestions for preventing this ongoing epidemic spread across the population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

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

          Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

          Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p<0·0001), and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL (18·42, 2·64–128·55; p=0·0033) on admission. Median duration of viral shedding was 20·0 days (IQR 17·0–24·0) in survivors, but SARS-CoV-2 was detectable until death in non-survivors. The longest observed duration of viral shedding in survivors was 37 days. Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among Chinese residents during the rapid rise period of the COVID-19 outbreak: a quick online cross-sectional survey

            Unprecedented measures have been adopted to control the rapid spread of the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic in China. People's adherence to control measures is affected by their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards COVID-19. In this study, we investigated Chinese residents' KAP towards COVID-19 during the rapid rise period of the outbreak. An online sample of Chinese residents was successfully recruited via the authors' networks with residents and popular media in Hubei, China. A self-developed online KAP questionnaire was completed by the participants. The knowledge questionnaire consisted of 12 questions regarding the clinical characteristics and prevention of COVID-19. Assessments on residents' attitudes and practices towards COVID-19 included questions on confidence in winning the battle against COVID-19 and wearing masks when going out in recent days. Among the survey completers (n=6910), 65.7% were women, 63.5% held a bachelor degree or above, and 56.2% engaged in mental labor. The overall correct rate of the knowledge questionnaire was 90%. The majority of the respondents (97.1%) had confidence that China can win the battle against COVID-19. Nearly all of the participants (98.0%) wore masks when going out in recent days. In multiple logistic regression analyses, the COVID-19 knowledge score (OR: 0.75-0.90, P<0.001) was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of negative attitudes and preventive practices towards COVID-2019. Most Chinese residents of a relatively high socioeconomic status, in particular women, are knowledgeable about COVID-19, hold optimistic attitudes, and have appropriate practices towards COVID-19. Health education programs aimed at improving COVID-19 knowledge are helpful for Chinese residents to hold optimistic attitudes and maintain appropriate practices. Due to the limited sample representativeness, we must be cautious when generalizing these findings to populations of a low socioeconomic status.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

              Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Disaster Risk Reduct
                Int J Disaster Risk Reduct
                International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
                Elsevier Ltd.
                2212-4209
                28 May 2021
                July 2021
                28 May 2021
                : 61
                : 102373
                Affiliations
                [a ]University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China
                [b ]Institute of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China
                [c ]Department of Public Administration, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, 28644, South Korea
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Instates of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.15 ZhongGuanCun BeiYiTiao, 100190, Beijing, China.
                [1]

                The authors contribute equal.

                Article
                S2212-4209(21)00339-3 102373
                10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102373
                8159706
                34079690
                b24bbf60-9a8e-4727-8177-cd3fca98d2bf
                © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 22 February 2021
                : 24 May 2021
                : 25 May 2021
                Categories
                Article

                risk perception,covid-19,influence factors,international comparison

                Comments

                Comment on this article