Politics, preparedness, or resources Examining state responsiveness to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q2 Social Sciences
Luisa Lucero, Luisa Diaz-Kope, Hadiza Galadima
{"title":"Politics, preparedness, or resources <i>Examining state responsiveness to the COVID-19 pandemic</i>.","authors":"Luisa Lucero,&nbsp;Luisa Diaz-Kope,&nbsp;Hadiza Galadima","doi":"10.1017/pls.2022.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>U.S. states are often the primary decision makers during a public health crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic led to several different reopening processes across states based on their unique characteristics. We analyze whether states' reopening policy decisions were driven by their public health preparedness, resources, COVID-19 impact, or state politics and political culture. To do so, we summarized state characteristics and compared them across three categories of reopening scores in a bivariate analysis using the chi-square or Fisher exact test for the categorical variables and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the continuous variables. A cumulative logit model was used to assess the primary research question. A significant factor in a state's reopening decision was the party of the governor, regardless of the party in control of the legislature, state political culture, public health preparedness, cumulative number of deaths per 100,000, and Opportunity Index score.</p>","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"41 2","pages":"276-288"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2022.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

U.S. states are often the primary decision makers during a public health crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic led to several different reopening processes across states based on their unique characteristics. We analyze whether states' reopening policy decisions were driven by their public health preparedness, resources, COVID-19 impact, or state politics and political culture. To do so, we summarized state characteristics and compared them across three categories of reopening scores in a bivariate analysis using the chi-square or Fisher exact test for the categorical variables and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the continuous variables. A cumulative logit model was used to assess the primary research question. A significant factor in a state's reopening decision was the party of the governor, regardless of the party in control of the legislature, state political culture, public health preparedness, cumulative number of deaths per 100,000, and Opportunity Index score.

政治、准备或资源考察国家对COVID-19大流行的反应。
在公共卫生危机期间,美国各州往往是主要决策者。COVID-19大流行导致各州根据其独特特征进行了几种不同的重新开放程序。我们分析了各州的重新开放政策决定是否受到其公共卫生准备、资源、COVID-19影响或州政治和政治文化的驱动。为此,我们总结了状态特征,并在双变量分析中对三类重开分数进行了比较,对分类变量使用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验,对连续变量使用单向方差分析(ANOVA)。使用累积logit模型来评估主要研究问题。一个州重新开放的决定的一个重要因素是州长的政党,而不管控制立法机构的政党、州的政治文化、公共卫生准备、每10万人的累积死亡人数和机会指数得分。
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
Politics and the Life Sciences
Politics and the Life Sciences Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal with a global audience. PLS is owned and published by the ASSOCIATION FOR POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES, the APLS, which is both an American Political Science Association (APSA) Related Group and an American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Member Society. The PLS topic range is exceptionally broad: evolutionary and laboratory insights into political behavior, including political violence, from group conflict to war, terrorism, and torture; political analysis of life-sciences research, health policy, environmental policy, and biosecurity policy; and philosophical analysis of life-sciences problems, such as bioethical controversies.
×
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