1887
  1. Home
  2. Eurosurveillance
  3. Volume 26, Issue 42, 21/Oct/2021
  4. Article
Research Open Access
Like 0
Download

Abstract

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public perceptions and behaviours have had to adapt rapidly to new risk scenarios and radical behavioural restrictions.

Aim

To identify major drivers of acceptance of protective behaviours during the 4-week transition from virtually no COVID-19 cases to the nationwide lockdown in Germany (3–25 March 2020).

Methods

A serial cross-sectional online survey was administered weekly to ca 1,000 unique individuals for four data collection rounds in March 2020 using non-probability quota samples, representative of the German adult population between 18 and 74 years in terms of age × sex and federal state (n = 3,910). Acceptance of restrictions was regressed on sociodemographic variables, time and psychological variables, e.g. trust, risk perceptions, self-efficacy. Extraction of homogenous clusters was based on knowledge and behaviour.

Results

Acceptance of restrictive policies increased with participants’ age and employment in the healthcare sector; cognitive and particularly affective risk perceptions were further significant predictors. Acceptance increased over time, as trust in institutions became more relevant and trust in media became less relevant. The cluster analysis further indicated that having a higher education increased the gap between knowledge and behaviour. Trust in institutions was related to conversion of knowledge into action.

Conclusion

Identifying relevant principles that increase acceptance will remain crucial to the development of strategies that help adjust behaviour to control the pandemic, possibly for years to come. Based on our findings, we provide operational recommendations for health authorities regarding data collection, health communication and outreach.

© Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.42.2001900
2021-10-21
2024-12-21
/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.42.2001900
Loading
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/eurosurveillance/26/42/eurosurv-26-42-4.html?itemId=/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.42.2001900&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Haug N, Geyrhofer L, Londei A, Dervic E, Desvars-Larrive A, Loreto V, et al. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4(12):1303-12.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01009-0  PMID: 33199859 
  2. Tian H, Liu Y, Li Y, Wu C-H, Chen B, Kraemer MUG, et al. An investigation of transmission control measures during the first 50 days of the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Science. 2020;368(6491):638-42.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb6105  PMID: 32234804 
  3. Bruine de Bruin W. Age differences in COVID-19 risk perceptions and mental health: evidence from a national U.S. survey conducted in March 2020. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021;76(2):e24-9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa074  PMID: 32470120 
  4. Bruine de Bruin W, Bennett D. Relationships between initial Covid-19 risk perceptions and protective health behaviors: a national survey. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59(2):157-67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.05.001  PMID: 32576418 
  5. Masters NB, Shih S-F, Bukoff A, Akel KB, Kobayashi LC, Miller AL, et al. Social distancing in response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United States. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0239025.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239025  PMID: 32915884 
  6. McFadden SM, Malik AA, Aguolu OG, Willebrand KS, Omer SB. Perceptions of the adult US population regarding the novel coronavirus outbreak. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0231808.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231808  PMID: 32302370 
  7. Lennon RP, Sakya SM, Miller EL, Snyder B, Yaman T, Zgierska AE, et al. Public intent to comply with covid-19 public health recommendations. Health Lit Res Pract. 2020;4(3):e161-5.  https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20200708-01  PMID: 32926171 
  8. Ciancio A, Kämpfen F, Kohler IV, Bennett D, Bruine de Bruin W, Darling J, et al. Know your epidemic, know your response: Early perceptions of COVID-19 and self-reported social distancing in the United States. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0238341.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238341  PMID: 32886671 
  9. Duan T, Jiang H, Deng X, Zhang Q, Wang F. Government intervention, risk perception, and the adoption of protective action recommendations: evidence from the covid-19 prevention and control experience of China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3387.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103387  PMID: 32414013 
  10. Ding Y, Xu J, Huang S, Li P, Lu C, Xie S. Risk perception and depression in public health crises: evidence from the covid-19 crisis in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(16):5728.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165728  PMID: 32784792 
  11. He S, Chen S, Kong L, Liu W. Analysis of risk perceptions and related factors concerning covid-19 epidemic in Chongqing, China. J Community Health. 2021;46(2):278-85. PMID: 32592160 
  12. Huynh TLD. Data for understanding the risk perception of COVID-19 from Vietnamese sample. Data Brief. 2020;30:105530.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.105530  PMID: 32322641 
  13. Bodrud-Doza M, Shammi M, Bahlman L, Islam ARMT, Rahman MM. Psychosocial and socio-economic crisis in Bangladesh due to covid-19 pandemic: a perception-based assessment. Front Public Health. 2020;8:341.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00341  PMID: 32676492 
  14. Harapan H, Anwar S, Nainu F, Setiawan AM, Yufika A, Winardi W, et al. Perceived risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2: a perspective from Indonesia. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2020;1-5.  https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.351  PMID: 32907679 
  15. Reddy SP, Sewpaul R, Mabaso M, Parker S, Naidoo I, Jooste S, et al. South Africans’ understanding of and response to the COVID-19 outbreak: an online survey. S Afr Med J. 2020;110(9):894-902.  https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i9.14838  PMID: 32880275 
  16. Olapegba PO, Iorfa SK, Kolawole SO, Oguntayo R, Gandi JC, Ottu IFA, et al. Survey data of COVID-19-related knowledge, risk perceptions and precautionary behavior among Nigerians. Data Brief. 2020;30:105685.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.105685  PMID: 32391411 
  17. Sengeh P, Jalloh MB, Webber N, Ngobeh I, Samba T, Thomas H, et al. Community knowledge, perceptions and practices around COVID-19 in Sierra Leone: a nationwide, cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9):e040328.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040328  PMID: 32948576 
  18. Seale H, Heywood AE, Leask J, Sheel M, Thomas S, Durrheim DN, et al. COVID-19 is rapidly changing: Examining public perceptions and behaviors in response to this evolving pandemic. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0235112.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235112  PMID: 32574184 
  19. Germani A, Buratta L, Delvecchio E, Mazzeschi C. Emerging adults and covid-19: the role of individualism-collectivism on perceived risks and psychological maladjustment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3497.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103497  PMID: 32429536 
  20. Motta Zanin G, Gentile E, Parisi A, Spasiano D. A preliminary evaluation of the public risk perception related to the covid-19 health emergency in Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(9):3024.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093024  PMID: 32349253 
  21. Gesser-Edelsburg A, Cohen R, Hijazi R, Abed Elhadi Shahbari N. Analysis of public perception of the Israeli government’s early emergency instructions regarding covid-19: online survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(5):e19370.  https://doi.org/10.2196/19370  PMID: 32392172 
  22. Losada-Baltar A, Jiménez-Gonzalo L, Gallego-Alberto L, Pedroso-Chaparro MDS, Fernandes-Pires J, Márquez-González M. We are staying at home: association of self-perceptions of aging, personal and family resources, and loneliness with psychological distress during the lock-down period of covid-19. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021;76(2):e10-16.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa048  PMID: 32282920 
  23. Abdelhafiz AS, Mohammed Z, Ibrahim ME, Ziady HH, Alorabi M, Ayyad M, et al. Knowledge, perceptions, and attitude of Egyptians towards the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). J Community Health. 2020;45(5):881-90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00827-7  PMID: 32318986 
  24. Shiina A, Niitsu T, Kobori O, Idemoto K, Hashimoto T, Sasaki T, et al. Relationship between perception and anxiety about COVID-19 infection and risk behaviors for spreading infection: A national survey in Japan. Brain Behav Immun Health. 2020;6:100101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100101  PMID: 32835297 
  25. Geldsetzer P.Use of rapid online surveys to assess people's perceptions during infectious disease outbreaks: a cross-sectional survey on COVID-19. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(4):e18790.  PMID: 32240094 
  26. Mækelæ MJ, Reggev N, Dutra N, Tamayo RM, Silva-Sobrinho RA, Klevjer K, et al. Perceived efficacy of COVID-19 restrictions, reactions and their impact on mental health during the early phase of the outbreak in six countries. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7(8):200644.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200644  PMID: 32968525 
  27. Vally Z. Public perceptions, anxiety and the perceived efficacy of health-protective behaviours to mitigate the spread of the SARS-Cov-2/ COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health. 2020;187:67-73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.08.002  PMID: 32927291 
  28. Reynolds B, W Seeger M. Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. J Health Commun. 2005;10(1):43-55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730590904571  PMID: 15764443 
  29. Rasmussen SA, Goodman RA. The CDC field epidemiology manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018.
  30. Rubaltelli E, Tedaldi E, Orabona N, Scrimin S. Environmental and psychological variables influencing reactions to the COVID-19 outbreak. Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25(4):1020-38.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12473  PMID: 32951244 
  31. Abir T, Kalimullah NA, Osuagwu UL, Yazdani DMN, Mamun AA, Husain T, et al. Factors associated with the perception of risk and knowledge of contracting the SARS-Cov-2 among adults in Bangladesh: analysis of online surveys. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(14):5252.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145252  PMID: 32708161 
  32. Marinthe G, Brown G, Delouvée S, Jolley D. Looking out for myself: Exploring the relationship between conspiracy mentality, perceived personal risk, and COVID-19 prevention measures. Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25(4):957-80.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12449  PMID: 32583540 
  33. Reintjes R, Das E, Klemm C, Richardus JH, Keßler V, Ahmad A. ”Pandemic public health paradox”: time series analysis of the 2009/10 influenza A/H1N1 epidemiology, media attention, risk perception and public reactions in 5 European countries. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151258.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151258  PMID: 26982071 
  34. Betsch C, Wieler LH, Habersaat K, COSMO group. Monitoring behavioural insights related to COVID-19. Lancet. 2020;395(10232):1255-6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30729-7  PMID: 32247323 
  35. COSMO Group. Covid-19 snapshot monitoring. Trier: PsychArchives. [Accessed: 29 Sep 2021].  https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2776 
  36. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Euro). COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO Standard): Monitoring knowledge, risk perceptions, preventive behaviours, and public trust in the current coronavirus outbreak - WHO standard protocol. Copenhagen: WHO/Euro. [Accessed: 29 Sep 2021]. Available from: https://www.psycharchives.org/handle/20.500.12034/2392
  37. World Health Organization (WHO). Survey tool and guidance: rapid, simple, flexible behavioural insights on COVID-19: 29 July 2020. Geneva: WHO; 2020. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/333549
  38. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ. Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review. Public Underst Sci. 2012;21(7):782-95.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510392485  PMID: 23832558 
  39. Rubin GJ, Amlôt R, Page L, Wessely S. Public perceptions, anxiety, and behaviour change in relation to the swine flu outbreak: cross sectional telephone survey. BMJ. 2009;339:b2651.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2651  PMID: 19574308 
  40. May PJ. Regulation and compliance motivations: examining different approaches. Public Adm Rev. 2005;65(1):31-44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00428.x 
  41. Feufel MA, Antes G, Gigerenzer G. Vom sicheren Umgang mit Unsicherheit: Was wir von der pandemischen Influenza (H1N1) 2009 lernen können. [Dealing safely with uncertainty: what we can learn from pandemic influenza (H1N1) 2009]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt. 2010;53(12):1283-9. German.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-010-1165-1 
  42. van der Pligt J. Risk perception and self-protective behavior. Eur Psychol. 1996;1(1):34-43.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.1.1.34 
  43. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, Risk Perception and the TGC Model of Cooperation. In: Trust in Risk Management. London: Routledge, 2010. S. 18-66.
  44. Brugger J, Hawkes KL, Bowen AM, McClaran MP. Framework for a collaborative process to increase preparation for drought on U.S. public rangelands. Ecol Soc. 2018;23(4):18.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10503-230418 
  45. Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J Psychol. 1975;91(1):93-114.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803  PMID: 28136248 
  46. Becker MH. The health belief model and sick role behavior. Health Educ Monogr. 1974;2(4):409-19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200407 
  47. Rimal RN. Closing the knowledge-behavior gap in health promotion: the mediating role of self-efficacy. Health Commun. 2000;12(3):219-37.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1203_01  PMID: 10938914 
  48. Abou Chakra M, Bumann S, Schenk H, Oschlies A, Traulsen A. Immediate action is the best strategy when facing uncertain climate change. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):2566.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04968-1  PMID: 29967461 
  49. Robert Koch-Institut (RKI). Robert Koch-Institut: COVID-19-Dashboard. Berlin: RKI. [Accessed: 21 Apr 2021]. German. Available from: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478220a4c454480e823b17327b2bf1d4
  50. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Access panels in market, opinion and social research — vocabulary and service requirements. ISO/IEC 26362:2009. Geneva: ISO; 2009. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/43521.html
  51. Betsch C, Bosnjak M, Korn L, Burgard T, Gaissmaier W. Supplementary materials to: The four weeks before lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. PsychArchives. 2021.  https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.4786 
  52. Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007;26(2):136-45.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136  PMID: 17385964 
  53. Bradley MM, Lang PJ. Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1994;25(1):49-59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9  PMID: 7962581 
  54. Google. Google Trends. Mountain View: Google. [Accessed: 19 Oct 2021]. Available from: https://trends.google.com
  55. Zarocostas J. How to fight an infodemic. Lancet. 2020;395(10225):676.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X  PMID: 32113495 
  56. Mheidly N, Fares J. Leveraging media and health communication strategies to overcome the COVID-19 infodemic. J Public Health Policy. 2020;41(4):410-20.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-020-00247-w  PMID: 32826935 
  57. Taherdoost H. Determining sample size: how to calculate survey sample size. International Journal of Economics and Management Systems. 2017;2. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3224205
  58. Gelman A. Struggles with survey weighting and regression modeling. Stat Sci. 2007;22(2):153-164.  https://doi.org/10.1214/088342306000000691 
  59. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Core Team; 2016. Available from: https://www.R-project.org
  60. Cumming G. Inference by eye: reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Stat Med. 2009;28(2):205-20.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3471  PMID: 18991332 
  61. Gibson Miller J, Hartman TK, Levita L, Martinez AP, Mason L, McBride O, et al. Capability, opportunity, and motivation to enact hygienic practices in the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United Kingdom. Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25(4):856-64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12426  PMID: 32415918 
  62. Aven T, Renn O. Improving government policy on risk: eight key principles. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2018;176:230-41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.04.018 
  63. Tannert C, Elvers HD, Jandrig B. The ethics of uncertainty. In the light of possible dangers, research becomes a moral duty. EMBO Rep. 2007;8(10):892-6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401072  PMID: 17906667 
  64. Nivette A, Ribeaud D, Murray A, Steinhoff A, Bechtiger L, Hepp U, et al. Non-compliance with COVID-19-related public health measures among young adults in Switzerland: Insights from a longitudinal cohort study. Soc Sci Med. 2021;268:113370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113370  PMID: 32980677 
  65. Webster RK, Brooks SK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Rubin GJ. How to improve adherence with quarantine: rapid review of the evidence. Public Health. 2020;182:163-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.03.007  PMID: 32334182 
  66. Brouard S, Vasilopoulos P, Becher M. Sociodemographic and psychological correlates of compliance with the covid-19 public health measures in France. Can J Polit Sci. 2020;53(2):253-8.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423920000335 
  67. Ruiter RAC, Kessels LTE, Peters G-JY, Kok G. Sixty years of fear appeal research: current state of the evidence. Int J Psychol. 2014;49(2):63-70.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12042  PMID: 24811876 
  68. Brehm JW. Control, its loss, and psychological reactance. In: Control motivation and social cognition. New York: Springer; 1993.
  69. Bosnjak M, Dannwolf T, Enderle T, Schaurer I, Struminskaya B, Tanner A, et al. Establishing an open probability-based mixed-mode panel of the general population in Germany: the GESIS panel. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2018;36(1):103-15.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317697949 
  70. Weber W, Reinhardt A, Rossmann C. Lifestyle segmentation to explain the online health information–seeking behavior of older adults: representative telephone survey. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e15099.  https://doi.org/10.2196/15099  PMID: 32530433 
  71. Gruber J, Prinstein MJ, Clark LA, Rottenberg J, Abramowitz JS, Albano AM, et al. Mental health and clinical psychological science in the time of COVID-19: challenges, opportunities, and a call to action. Am Psychol. 2021;76(3):409-26. PMID: 32772538 
  72. Francisco R, Pedro M, Delvecchio E, Espada JP, Morales A, Mazzeschi C, et al. Psychological Symptoms and Behavioral Changes in Children and Adolescents During the Early Phase of COVID-19 Quarantine in Three European Countries. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:570164.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.570164  PMID: 33343415 
  73. Paulhus D. Social desirable responding: the evolution of a construct, pp 49-69. In Braun HI, Jackson DN (Eds.). The role of constructs in psychological and education measurement. Mahwah, New Jersey: Earlbaum Publishers; 2002.
  74. Respondi.de. Panel book. Köln: Respondi.de. [Accessed: 29 Sep 2021]. Available from: https://www.respondi.com/EN/access-panel#download-form
The four weeks before lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: a weekly serial cross-sectional survey on risk perceptions, knowledge, public trust and behaviour, 3 to 25 March 2020
<p class="citation"> <span>Citation style for this article:</span> <span class="meta-value authors"> <a href="/search?value1=Cornelia+Betsch&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Betsch Cornelia</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Lars+Korn&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Korn Lars</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Tanja+Burgard&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Burgard Tanja</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Wolfgang+Gaissmaier&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Gaissmaier Wolfgang</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Lisa+Felgendreff&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Felgendreff Lisa</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Sarah+Eitze&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Eitze Sarah</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Philipp+Sprengholz&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Sprengholz Philipp</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Robert+B%C3%B6hm&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Böhm Robert</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Volker+Stollorz&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Stollorz Volker</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Michael+Ramharter&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Ramharter Michael</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Nikolai+Promies&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Promies Nikolai</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Freia+De+Bock&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">De Bock Freia</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Philipp+Schmid&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Schmid Philipp</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Britta+Renner&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Renner Britta</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Lothar+H+Wieler&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Wieler Lothar H</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Michael+Bosnjak&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Bosnjak Michael</a></span>. The four weeks before lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: a weekly serial cross-sectional survey on risk perceptions, knowledge, public trust and behaviour, 3 to 25 March 2020. <a href="/content/ecdc">Euro Surveill.</a> 2021;26(42):pii=2001900. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.42.2001900" title="doi link" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.42.2001900</a> <span class="ES_Article_citation"> <span class="generated">Received</span>: 05 Nov 2020;&nbsp;&nbsp; <span class="generated">Accepted</span>: 17 May 2021 </span> </p>
/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.42.2001900
/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.42.2001900
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary data

Submit comment
Close
Comment moderation successfully completed
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error