The COVID-19 pandemic in Norway and Sweden – threats, trust, and impact on daily life: a comparative survey

  1. Lise M. Helsingen
  2. Erle Refsum
  3. Dagrun Kyte Gjøstein
  4. Magnus Løberg
  5. Michael Bretthauer
  6. Mette Kalager
  7. Louise Emilsson
  8. for the Clinical Effectiveness Research group

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Norway and Sweden have similar populations and health care systems, but different reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Norway closed educational institutions, and banned sports and cultural activities; Sweden kept most institutions and training facilities open. We aimed to compare peoples’ attitudes towards authorities and control measures, and perceived impact of the pandemic and implemented control measures on life in Norway and Sweden.

Methods

Anonymous web-based surveys for individuals age 15 or older distributed through Facebook using the snowball method, in Norway and Sweden from mid-March to mid-April, 2020. The survey contained questions about perceived threat of the pandemic, views on infection control measures, and impact on daily life. We performed descriptive analyses of the responses and compared the two countries.

Results

3508 individuals participated in the survey (Norway 3000; Sweden 508). 79% were women, the majority were 30–49 years (Norway 60%; Sweden 47%), and about 45% of the participants in both countries had more than 4 years of higher education.

Participants had high trust in the health services, but differed in the degree of trust in their government (High trust in Norway 17%; Sweden 37%). More Norwegians than Swedes agreed that school closure was a good measure (Norway 66%; Sweden 18%), that countries with open schools were irresponsible (Norway 65%; Sweden 23%), and that the threat from repercussions of the mitigation measures were large or very large (Norway 71%; Sweden 56%). Both countries had a high compliance with infection preventive measures (> 98%). Many lived a more sedentary life (Norway 69%; Sweden 50%) and ate more (Norway 44%; Sweden 33%) during the pandemic.

Conclusion

Sweden had more trust in the authorities, while Norwegians reported a more negative lifestyle during the pandemic. The level of trust in the health care system and self-reported compliance with preventive measures was high in both countries despite the differences in infection control measures.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1186/s12889-020-09615-3
  2. Version published to 10.21203/rs.3.rs-32385/v3 on Research Square
  3. Version published to 10.21203/rs.3.rs-32385/v2 on Research Square
  4. Version published to 10.21203/rs.3.rs-32385/v1 on Research Square
  5. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.16.20089953: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was anonymous and did not require approval by the Norwegian Center for Research Data or ethics committee for medical research, or the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (7, 8).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We analyzed the data descriptively, using Stata version 16.1 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, United States).
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  6. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.16.20089953v1 on medRxiv