Polarization and health-related behaviours and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol

A. M. Ipekci, Maximilian Filsinger, Diana Buitrago-García, Cristopher I. Kobler Betancourt, Annika Frahsa, Nicola Low
{"title":"Polarization and health-related behaviours and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol","authors":"A. M. Ipekci, Maximilian Filsinger, Diana Buitrago-García, Cristopher I. Kobler Betancourt, Annika Frahsa, Nicola Low","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.145852.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic affected people’s health behaviours and health outcomes. Political or affective polarization could be associated with health behaviours such as mask-wearing or vaccine uptake and with health outcomes, e.g., infection or mortality rate. Political polarization relates to divergence or spread of ideological beliefs and affective polarization is about dislike between people of different political groups, such as ideologies or parties. The objectives of this study are to investigate and synthesize evidence about associations between both forms of polarization and COVID-19 health behaviours and outcomes. Methods In this systematic review, we will include quantitative studies that assess the relationship between political or affective polarization and COVID-19-related behaviours and outcomes, including adherence to mask mandates, vaccine uptake, infection and mortality rate. We will use a predetermined strategy to search EMBASE, Medline (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Global Health (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit (EBSCOhost), WHO COVID-19 Database, iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio (NIH) and Google Scholar from 2019 to September 8 2023. One reviewer will screen unique records according to eligibility criteria. A second reviewer will verify the selection. Data extraction, using pre-piloted electronic forms, will follow a similar process. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed using the JBI checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. We will summarise the included studies descriptively and examine the heterogeneity between studies. Quantitative data pooling might not be feasible due to variations in measurement methods used to evaluate exposure, affective and political polarization. If there are enough relevant studies for statistical data synthesis, we will conduct a meta-analysis. Discussion This review will help to better understand the concept of polarization in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and might inform decision making for future pandemics. Protocol registration PROSPERO ID: CRD42023475828.","PeriodicalId":504605,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.145852.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic affected people’s health behaviours and health outcomes. Political or affective polarization could be associated with health behaviours such as mask-wearing or vaccine uptake and with health outcomes, e.g., infection or mortality rate. Political polarization relates to divergence or spread of ideological beliefs and affective polarization is about dislike between people of different political groups, such as ideologies or parties. The objectives of this study are to investigate and synthesize evidence about associations between both forms of polarization and COVID-19 health behaviours and outcomes. Methods In this systematic review, we will include quantitative studies that assess the relationship between political or affective polarization and COVID-19-related behaviours and outcomes, including adherence to mask mandates, vaccine uptake, infection and mortality rate. We will use a predetermined strategy to search EMBASE, Medline (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Global Health (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit (EBSCOhost), WHO COVID-19 Database, iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio (NIH) and Google Scholar from 2019 to September 8 2023. One reviewer will screen unique records according to eligibility criteria. A second reviewer will verify the selection. Data extraction, using pre-piloted electronic forms, will follow a similar process. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed using the JBI checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. We will summarise the included studies descriptively and examine the heterogeneity between studies. Quantitative data pooling might not be feasible due to variations in measurement methods used to evaluate exposure, affective and political polarization. If there are enough relevant studies for statistical data synthesis, we will conduct a meta-analysis. Discussion This review will help to better understand the concept of polarization in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and might inform decision making for future pandemics. Protocol registration PROSPERO ID: CRD42023475828.
COVID-19 大流行期间的两极分化与健康相关行为和结果:系统性审查协议
导言 COVID-19 大流行影响了人们的健康行为和健康结果。政治或情感极化可能与戴口罩或接种疫苗等健康行为有关,也可能与感染率或死亡率等健康结果有关。政治极化与意识形态信仰的分歧或传播有关,情感极化则与不同政治团体(如意识形态或党派)的人之间的反感有关。本研究的目的是调查和综合两种极化形式与 COVID-19 健康行为和结果之间关系的相关证据。方法 在本系统性综述中,我们将纳入评估政治或情感两极化与 COVID-19 相关行为和结果之间关系的定量研究,包括遵守口罩规定、疫苗接种率、感染率和死亡率。我们将采用预先确定的策略,从 2019 年到 2023 年 9 月 8 日检索 EMBASE、Medline (Ovid)、Cochrane Library、Cochrane COVID-19 研究登记、Global Health (Ovid)、PsycInfo (Ovid)、Web of Science、CINAHL、EconLit (EBSCOhost)、WHO COVID-19 数据库、iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio (NIH) 和 Google Scholar。一名审稿人将根据资格标准筛选唯一记录。第二位审稿人将核实筛选结果。数据提取将使用预先试行的电子表格,并遵循类似的流程。纳入研究的偏倚风险将使用分析性横断面研究的 JBI 检查表进行评估。我们将对纳入的研究进行描述性总结,并检查研究之间的异质性。由于用于评估暴露、情感和政治极化的测量方法不同,可能无法进行定量数据汇总。如果有足够的相关研究可用于统计数据分析,我们将进行荟萃分析。讨论 本综述将有助于在 COVID-19 大流行的背景下更好地理解两极分化的概念,并为未来大流行的决策提供参考。协议注册 PROSPERO ID:CRD42023475828。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信