The impact of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions on the lived experiences of people living in Thailand, Malaysia, Italy and the United Kingdom: A cross-country qualitative study

  1. Mira L. Schneiders
  2. Bhensri Naemiratch
  3. Phaik Kin Cheah
  4. Giulia Cuman
  5. Tassawan Poomchaichote
  6. Supanat Ruangkajorn
  7. Silvia Stoppa
  8. Anne Osterrieder
  9. Phee-Kheng Cheah
  10. Darlene Ongkili
  11. Wirichada Pan-ngum
  12. Constance R. S. Mackworth-Young
  13. Phaik Yeong Cheah

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

This qualitative study explores the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including social distancing, travel restrictions and quarantine, on lived experiences during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand (TH), Malaysia (MY), Italy (IT) and the United Kingdom (UK). A total of 86 interviews (TH: n = 28; MY: n = 18; IT: n = 20; UK: n = 20) were conducted with members of the public, including healthcare workers (n = 13). Participants across countries held strong views on government imposed NPIs, with many feeling measures lacked clarity. Most participants reported primarily negative impacts of NPIs on their lives, including through separation, isolation and grief over missed milestones; work-related challenges and income loss; and poor mental health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, many also experienced inadvertent positive consequences, including more time at home to focus on what they most valued in life; a greater sense of connectedness; and benefits to working life. Commonly employed coping strategies focused on financial coping (e.g. reducing spending); psycho-emotional coping (e.g. engaging in spiritual practices); social coping and connectedness (e.g., maintaining relationships remotely); reducing and mitigating risks (e.g., changing food shopping routines); and limiting exposure to the news (e.g., checking news only occasionally). Importantly, the extent to which participants’ lived experiences were positive or negative, and their ability to cope was underpinned by individual, social and economic factors, with the analysis indicating some salient differences across countries and participants. In order to mitigate negative and unequal impacts of NPIs, COVID-19 policies will benefit from paying closer attention to the social, cultural and psychological—not just biological—vulnerabilities to, and consequences of public health measures.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0262421
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.13.21257162: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Written informed consent was obtained electronically and permission was sought to audio record interviews.
    IRB: Ethical approval: Ethics approval was granted by Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC, reference no.520-20), covering all four countries.
    IACUC: In Malaysia, additional approval was granted by the Medical Research and Ethics Committee (MREC), the Ministry of Health Malaysia (MOH ref: NMRR-20-595-54437 (IIR)), and the Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) Scientific and Ethical Review Committee (SERC, ref: (U/SERC/63/2020).
    Sex as a biological variableParticipant characteristics: Overall, 51% of all participants were female, 43% male and 6% identified as other genders (Table 1).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.13.21257162v1 on medRxiv