Next Article in Journal
Factors Associated with Rural Residents’ Contract Behavior with Village Doctors in Three Counties: A Cross-Sectional Study from China
Next Article in Special Issue
Results of Nurse Case Management in Primary Heath Care: Bibliographic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Development Goals and 2030 Agenda: Awareness, Knowledge and Attitudes in Nine Italian Universities, 2019
Previous Article in Special Issue
Qualitative Analysis by Experts of the Essential Elements of the Nursing Practice Environments Proposed by the TOP10 Questionnaire of Assessment of Environments in Primary Health Care
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 23
10.3390/ijerph17238967
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Risk Perception of COVID−19 Community Transmission among the Spanish Population

by
José Miguel Mansilla Domínguez
1,
Isabel Font Jiménez
1,*,
Angel Belzunegui Eraso
2,
David Peña Otero
3,4,5,6,
David Díaz Pérez
6,7,8 and
Ana María Recio Vivas
1
1
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Biomedical and Health Science, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain
2
Medical Anthropology Research Center, Faculty of Nursing, Rovira i Virgili University, 43002 Tarragona, Spain
3
Hospital de Sierrallana, Advisor, Sub-Directorate of Primary Care, Cantabrian Health Service, 39011 Cantabria, Spain
4
Nursing Area, IiSGM Research Institutes Gregorio Marañón, 29007 Madrid, Spain
5
Nursing Area, IDIVAL Research Institutes Valdecilla, 39011 Cantabria, Spain
6
Respiratory Nursing Department at Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR), 08029 Barcelona, Spain
7
Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery Service of the Hospital Universitario Nuestra Señora de Candelaria, 38010 Tenerife, Spain
8
Coordinator of the Respiratory Nursing Department at SEPAR, 08029 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(23), 8967; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238967
Submission received: 15 October 2020 / Revised: 27 November 2020 / Accepted: 28 November 2020 / Published: 2 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Community Empowerment: The Potential for Community Health Nursing Development)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
On 11 March 2020 the SARS-CoV−2 virus was officially declared a pandemic and measures were set up in various countries to avoid its spread among the population. This paper aims to analyse the perception of risk of COVID−19 infection in the Spanish population. A cross-sectional, descriptive observational study was conducted with a total of 16,372 Spanish participants. An online survey was used to gather data for 5 consecutive days over the compulsory lockdown period which was established after the state of emergency was declared. There is an association between socio-demographic variables and risk perception, and a very strong relationship between this perception and contact and direct experience with the virus in a family, social or professional setting. We also found that compared to working from home, working outside the home increased the perception of risk of infection and the perception of worsening health. Understanding the public perception of the risk of COVID−19 infection is fundamental for establishing effective prevention measures.

1. Introduction

According to the timeline established by the World Health Organisation (WHO), on 5 January the first report was published of an outbreak of pneumonia in China caused by a new virus. On 13 January, cases began to appear in areas outside China. On 30 January the new virus, dubbed SARS-CoV−2, was declared a public health emergency affecting 18 countries, and on 11 March it was officially declared a pandemic.
This novel coronavirus causes an illness called COVID−19, characterised as leading to serious pneumonia, although it is asymptomatic in 80% of cases [1]. Other typical symptoms include fever, dry cough, fatigue and aches [2,3], as well as gastrointestinal symptoms in 40% of cases, and other neurological and dermatological symptoms [4]. The patients considered to be the most vulnerable to developing symptoms are the elderly [5], due to the presence of immunosenescence [6], and people with existing conditions such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes [7].
It has been found to be highly contagious in the community, with transmission via respiratory droplets and direct contact [8]. Other studies discuss the possibility of aerosol transmission [9,10].
The first cases of COVID−19 in Spain occurred in February 2020 [11], in March, Europe became the epicentre of the pandemic [12]. France, Italy and Spain were the most affected countries with mortality rates of 15%, 13% and 11%, respectively. When analysing the data about mortality rate caused by COVID−19, it is important to consider that the different system of case registration among the European countries could have influenced the mortality rate differences.
Spain reached a peak on 3 April with 950 deaths per day (update No. 74). This situation posed a challenge for public health in these countries, which had to face the strong demand for health services, with a high number of hospital admissions and ICU admissions (26.5%) [13]. The recommendations supported personal hygiene measures, along with social distancing, as the most effective measures to stop the growth curve of cases [4,14,15]. In Spain, as had previously happened in Italy, mandatory confinement of the population was decreed on 14 March 2020 (Royal Decree 463/2020, 14 March) [16]. At that time, there were 7753 cases diagnosed in Spain, with a mortality rate of 3.7% of confirmed cases (Ministry of Health update No. 45).
The data on the number of infections, deaths and the saturation states of the hospitals was known by the population through different media, government information, social networks, television, radio, etc. Creating a social alarm that provoked fear among the population and a heightened risk perception [17,18] by associating the risk of infection with a real threat to their health [19].
At this time, it seemed interesting to inquire about monitoring preventive behaviours among the population and how these were associated or not with risk perception of SARS-CoV−2 contagion. This association seems interesting when observed in other pandemics as the relationship between risk perception and behaviour could offer information for the implementation of health policies, such as vaccination [20]. The authorities depend on monitoring the population for prevention measures to stop the spread of the virus [21,22]. Different factors studied in this pandemic increase risk perception, such as income level [23], vulnerability to the disease [24] and gender [25]. Other factors, such as lack of access to treatment or health services, are also associated with increased risk perception [26].
Risk perception belongs to the psychology category, which refers to an individual’s perception and understanding of the presence of objective danger to the individual or to the individual’s environment [27,28] Risk perception is an important factor that influences risk behaviours, such as whether or not to accept vaccination [29]. People with a lower risk perception tend to assume risky behaviours or reduce preventive behaviours, as shown by the Ding study, to the Chinese university population [21].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participant Selection

A cross-sectional, descriptive observational study was conducted with the participation of a total of 16,372 residents of Spain, 171 of whom were excluded for not meeting the criteria for inclusion (either they did not accept the informed consent statement, or they were under 18). In the end, the sample was 16,201 people (98.9% of the participants): 51.5% women and 48.5% men after weighting.
In order to get a large number of responses, we used non-probability consecutive sampling (snowball sampling). The initial bias of the sample was corrected by post-stratification, adjusting gross estimates according to gender and age, as proposed by Wang, Rothschild, Goel and Gelman [30]. Thus, in an appropriate statistical adjustment, non-random samples can generate accurate results, and refers to the importance of this type of survey for studying public opinion in different areas [30].
The adjustment method for the sample weighting was the iterative procedure with qualitative auxiliary information [31]. This procedure is used when there are qualitative auxiliary variables (gender and age groups) and maximum information is available on the univariate distributions of these auxiliary variables in the population and in the sample. Stratification is carried out by crossing these auxiliary variables, specifically from a double-entry contingency table. In the first iteration, the elevators corresponding to the gender variable are obtained and in the second iteration those corresponding to the age groups. Each iteration consists of two steps (as there are only two adjustment variables): (1) the distribution is adjusted with respect to the marginal population distribution of the first variable and (2) with this new weighted sampling distribution, the distribution is adjusted to the second characteristic. Finally, the assignment of elevators (Table 1) has enabled corrections to be introduced in other variables considered independent, such as educational level and marital status. The method also partially compensates for non-coverage [31].

2.2. Data Collection

An online questionnaire was used to gather data for 5 consecutive days over the compulsory lockdown period which was established after the state of emergency was declared in Spain. The questionnaire was distributed via social networks, scientific associations, and various healthcare-related institutions.
A specific questionnaire was prepared for this project using the tool “Google Forms”. The questionnaire comprised 59 items divided into 4 content areas (socio-demographic aspects, characteristics of the experience, health aspects, and risk perception) and included the project objectives, the requirements for participation and instructions for filling it in.

2.3. Variables

The dependent variable: to be studied was the perception of the risk of infection, a nominal variable with three categories (low, medium and high). The baseline variables which were considered as possible predictors of Perception of the risk of infection are as follows:
The Affect index is an ordinal variable (ranging in value from 0 = No affect to 1 = Maximum affect) constructed by standardising a set of diverse situations: a family member testing positive; a friend testing positive; somebody at work testing positive; death of a family member due to Covid−19).
Income was originally measured with an ordinal variable with 11 response categories, with extremes <€12,000 and >€300,000 euros. These categories were grouped into income quartiles: Q1: ≤€12,000; Q2: €12,001 to €22,500; Q3: €22,501 to €40,000; Q4: €40,001 to >€300,000.
The level of studies was classified into three levels: Primary studies (finished and unfinished); secondary studies (compulsory and post-compulsory) and higher studies (university).
The dichotomous variable work inside/outside the home was considered a possible predictor of risk perception since, remember, the survey was carried out in a period of confinement.
The coexistence variables (Who they live with) were also formulated dichotomously with response possibilities: Living alone and Living with others; if you live with a family member whose occupation is in healthcare (A family member works in healthcare, with Yes/No answers); Protective measures used (Protective measures, with Inadequate/Adequate categories); if Any family member has been affected (A member of the household is infected, with Yes/No answers).
Interviewees’ perception about whether their health had improved or worsened during confinement (Health status during confinement) was also considered a predictor variable, initially measured with a Lickert scale and later grouped into three categories (Good/Very good; Average; Poor/Very poor).

2.4. Analysis

Next, we conducted a preliminary analysis of the joint distribution of Perception of the risk of infection and the selection of potentially predictive variables (Table 2). The frequencies were calculated for each bivariate relationship and the corresponding relative frequencies were expressed as percentages. The hypothesis of independence between the variables was resolved with a Pearson chi-square test and its significance for a two-tailed distribution scenario. We also calculated the size of the effect of each relationship with Cohen’s d, as proposed by Rosenthal and DiMatteo [32], Lenhard and Lenhard [33] and Ferguson [34]. This analysis was used to create the final selection of variables which became part of the multinomial logistic regression analysis. All analyses were carried out with a confidence level of 95% and, therefore, a margin of error p = 0.05.
The multinomial logistic regression analysis was proposed in order to find predictors of the categories of Perception of the risk of infection, taking as the reference category Risk perception: Low. This type of analysis is especially suitable for modelling categorical and polytomous dependent variables, and is a multivariate extension of the binary logistic regression, admitting both continuous variables (covariates) and categorical variables (factors) as predictive variables [35].
The variables used in the model were gender, age, Affect index, place of work (working from home/outside the home), income (quartiles), health during lockdown (good/average/poor), protection measures (adequate/inadequate), whether a family member works in healthcare (yes/no), whether a member of the household is infected (yes/no) and where they get information on the disease (press/radio/TV; social networks/WhatsApp; official media/scientific documents).
We decided the model would not include some of the variables studied in previous analyses, such as education level, marital status, working/non-working population, and who they live with (living alone/with others); despite presenting statistical significance in the chi-square test, the coefficients of the size of the effect measured with Cohen’s d showed very small or negligible effects.
The parameters corresponding to the predictive variables were tested against the Wald test and its p-values, and the odds ratio (OR) of the coefficients and their confidence intervals were calculated. We also measured the goodness of the overall fit of the model with the chi-square test and the likelihood ratio test, and the percentage of correct classifications for each category. The goodness of fit was measured using the Nagelkerke pseudo R-squared parameter.
All the analyses were performed with the statistics program IBM SPSS v.21 (New York, NY, USA).

2.5. Ethical Aspects

The study was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the laws and regulations in force in Europe and Spain and has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee University Europea (CIPI/20/138) and Research Ethics Committee with Medical Products of Cantabria (code: 2020.159).
Given the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and in line with the indications of the European Medicines Agency and the Ministry of Health, Consumer Affairs and Social Welfare, written informed consent was requested at the start of the online survey. It was imperative that the user accepted it in order to continue with the survey.

3. Results

First, the sample distribution is presented taking the variables considered in the analysis processes into account.
The Age variable produced an average age of 48.92 (95% CI: 46.68; 49.16) and Std. Error = 0.123. The average age of men was 48.79 (95% CI: 48.45; 49.14) and Std. Error = 0.175, and the average age of women was 49.04 (95% CI: 48.70; 49.38) and Std. Error = 0.174. The Affect index produced an average value of 0.3105 (95% CI: 0.3058; 0.3152), with Std. Error = 0.0023.
Table 3 shows the variables which were considered to be possible predictors of Perception of the risk of infection.
All the variables presented statistical significance, but for some the size of the effect was negligible. As proposed by Cohen (1988), effect sizes of <0.2 can be considered as No Effect. This is the case for gender (dCohen = 0.1646), age (dCohen = 0.1914), education level (dCohen = 0.095), marital status (dCohen = 0.084), impact on income (dCohen = 0.1227 and who participants live with (dCohen = 0.0407). Despite this, we decided to include gender in the model, as this variable contributes to including a gender perspective in the predictive model; and age, which we finally included not as a categorised variable but in its original form as a continuous variable.
Larger effect sizes corresponded to having a family member working in healthcare (dCohen = 0.6051), degree of affect (dCohen = 0.3276), the place of work (dCohen = 0.4747), personal health perceived during lockdown (dCohen = 0.3672), having an infected member of the household (dCohen = 0.2516), and protection measures (dCohen = 0.2478).
This first analysis could indicate an association between a higher perceived risk of infection and having a family member, friend or workmate test positive; working outside the home; perceiving one’s own health as poor during lockdown; someone in the household becoming infected; using adequate protective measures; and getting most of one’s information from official media and scientific documents.
Next, a prediction analysis of the categories of the dependent variable was performed through a multinomial logistic regression. In the analysis, a series of variables with statistical significance in the bivariate tests were selected, taking them as independent variables, and risk perception as the dependent variable. The multinomial model shows different OR values for the predictor variables, which offers an indication of the importance of these variables in determining risk perception.
The results of the model show an uneven predictive value: 82.2% for the category “Perception of the risk of infection: Low”, 15% for the category “Perception of the risk of infection: Medium”, and 49.0% for “Perception of the risk of infection: High”. The total percentage of correct prediction was 52.4% (Table 4), with a Kappa coefficient value of 0.223 (p < 0.001). The results show a significant model (−2log likelihood = 0.821; χ2= 2193.43; p < 0.001), with a moderate and acceptable goodness of fit Nagelkerke R2 = 0.204.
Table 5 and Table 6 show the regression coefficients of the predictive variables for the Medium and High categories, respectively. The comparison of the OR values (Exp(B)) of the two tables shows a higher predictive value in the independent variables considered in a high perception of risk. In fact, it is 4.439 times more probable that perception of the risk of infection will be high among those whose health has been poor or very poor during lockdown, compared to those who experienced their health as good or very good. It is also 4.251 times more probable that people with family members working in healthcare have a higher perception of the risk of infection than those without. Other relevant OR values correspond to people who work outside the home, compared to those working from home (OR = 3.057), those with someone infected at home compared to those without (OR = 2.167), and to a lesser degree, being a woman rather than a man (OR = 1.531), and getting most of their information from official media or scientific documents, compared to the conventional media, press, radio and TV (OR = 1.258). It is also important to mention the affect index variable, which presents an OR = 2.770, and which reflects that higher values of affect coincide with a higher perception of risk of infection. However, as the scanty association between age and perception of the risk of infection shown in Table 2 seems to indicate, the model does not produce a significant regression coefficient for age. All of these tendencies can be seen in the predictions for the category Perception of the risk of infection: Medium, but with lower intensity in all the variables.
To sum up, the multinomial model highlights better prediction in the category “Perception of the risk of infection: High”, compared to the middle category, which is more poorly defined, probably due to the tendency for those surveyed to place some items in middling positions when they have to do with assessments and/or perceptions of situations experienced during the COVID−19 lockdown.

4. Discussion

This study presents the risk perception of the Spanish public during the lockdown period coinciding with the maximum peak of infection of the pandemic. It shows an association of risk perception with socio-demographic variables and level of affect. Affect is understood as a variable of proximity to the disease, through direct contact or in the workplace, household or social circle.
A preliminary analysis shows that people who put inadequate prevention measures in place scored higher in low risk perception. Many studies refer to the important role of risk perception when establishing behaviour which will protect health in a pandemic [36,37,38,39] Specifically, the review by Bish and Michie [40] shows the association between perceived personal and family susceptibility to the development of a disease and the presence of preventive behaviour (hand washing, household hygiene, wearing masks, etc.) and avoidance behaviour (avoiding going to public places, restaurants, shops, etc.). Some of these papers place particular emphasis on the need to present concrete interventions and directives to the general public, or focused on specific groups, to help give them an outlook which strikes a balance between the risk they face and the risk they perceive [37]. For this reason, knowing what factors are associated with a greater perception of risk is fundamental when taking effective measures in a pandemic.

4.1. Influence of Socio-Demographic Variables on Risk Perception

The data indicate that women perceive more risk, in line with the study by Dryhurst et al. [22] which concludes that men perceive lower levels of risk than women. Women appear to be more susceptible to suffering from virus-borne diseases, and to present a greater incidence and severity of the disease [41]. Additionally, other studies conclude that more women are infected with SARS-CoV−2 via the main causes of infection: being a healthcare worker, visiting a medical centre, close contact with a person with an acute respiratory infection, direct contact with probable or confirmed cases of COVID−19 [42], or being an informal caregiver [43].
All of this seems to justify women having a greater perception of risk.
Bearing in mind that the elderly population are at greater risk of death [6,44], it is notable that this group, to a lesser degree, also has a high risk perception. These results are in line with the findings of Barber and Kim [25], in which they explain how elder adults report less concern and present less anxiety over health than younger adults; and they contradict other studies which determine that the elderly are one of the groups with a higher perception of threats [36,45].

4.2. Relationship of the Perception of the Risk of Infection with Contact with COVID-19 and Affect Level

A higher level of affect, understood as direct contact, correlates to an increased risk perception.
Direct contact with SARS-CoV−2 relates to a greater perception of risk; more specifically, having a family member working in healthcare, or having lived with somebody infected. Other studies support the results obtained, concluding that people who have had a direct personal experience with the virus, and people who have received more information about it, present a higher risk perception [22].
Meanwhile, it can be observed that workers who work outside the home have a high-risk perception. This is attested by studies such as Ruiz-Frutos et al. [46], which affirm that people working outside the home present higher levels of loss of sleep, unhappiness and depression. The authors associate this fact with the existence of a greater perception of risk of infection for the subjects or their families, compared to people working from home.
Many studies discuss the fact that healthcare workers’ heavy exposure to SARS-CoV−2 means they have an increased perception of the risk of infection [47,48,49], with nurses as a group showing a higher perception than doctors [50].

4.3. Correlation between the Perceived State of Health and Perceived Risk of Infection

We observe that people who perceive their own health as poor or very poor are the ones with the highest perception of risk [51,52]. However, they also present fear of going to hospital, demonstrated in a decrease in hospital admissions for such significant pathologies as myocardial infarction [53] and stroke during the lockdown period [54]. Additionally, multiple studies show that the presence of comorbidities increases the severity and risk of death of COVID−19 [55,56,57], a fact which may justify a sense of greater risk among the more vulnerable.

4.4. Limitations

The main limitation of this paper is that the sample was not randomised, limiting the general applicability of the results. Even so, the large size of the sample means we can regard it as fairly representative. The circumstances of the pandemic prevented the use of more accurate sampling methods, but nevertheless the results obtained are highly significant and could be the basis for future papers and work with randomised samples.
The fact that the sample is not comparable has likely led to bias in the response, highlighting the fact that more women than men and more people with university studies responded to it. This has partially been corrected using post-stratification methods, although the response bias is not completely eliminated. There continues to be a slight over-representation of people with higher education. This fact must be taken into account when interpreting the results.
This work has attempted to measure risk perception that each of the respondents considered they had and, therefore, the following question was formulated: What do you consider is your risk of infection? Where 1 is the minimum and 5 the maximum. It is a subjective measurement and, therefore, it is understood that it could vary depending on the knowledge and individual characteristics of each one of them. Therefore, even with no objective measurement of risk, this work focused on individuals’ subjective perception in an extreme situation of confinement. This variable reflected in the questionnaire thus enables the necessary data to carry out this study on the subjectivity of the impact of the disease to be obtained.
To carry out this study, our own survey was used, designed ad hoc and, therefore, with no specific sensitivity and specificity analysis. This survey does not contain any validated tool. Despite the design of the study does not allow to extrapolate the results to all the Spanish population, we consider that the population sample used makes that the data can be used as a guide to perform effective prevention strategies and developing new research projects.
Finally, it should also be noted that despite the statistical significance shown by some crossovers of variables, effect sizes <0.30 indicate that caution must be exercised when determining clear associations, so this represents an added limitation to the time to build strong relationships. In our analyses, this fact has been taken into account and clearly specified when low effect sizes were obtained.

5. Conclusions

Understanding the perception of the risk of COVID−19 infection is fundamental for establishing prevention strategies among the public.
An association can be observed between socio-demographic variables and risk perception, and a very strong relationship between this perception and contact and direct experience with the virus in a family, social or professional setting. The logistic model also finds that working outside the home increases the perception of risk of infection, compared to people working from home. Additionally, the perception of worsening personal health is strongly associated with greater perception of the risk of infection, as is living with a family member who works in healthcare.

Applicability of the Results and Future Lines of Research

After carrying out this work, it is considered appropriate to develop new research projects aimed at knowing in detail what the behavioural and emotional responses of the population are, as well as their evolution during an epidemic or pandemic period. Specifically, one aspect that can be addressed in depth in future work is the fear of being stigmatised or discriminated against for having a positive test for COVID−19. A multidisciplinary perspective combines biological, psychological, and sociological aspects. Therefore, a multidisciplinary approach which also includes the psychological aspect, should be considered by the worldwide health policy makers [58]. It is also important to note that the groups that present a greater risk and fear perception are those that need the most support [59] and, therefore, require more complex investigations that place the focus of their objectives on it.
Dryhurst et al. identify the important role of risk perception in motivating health protection behaviours, especially during the COVID−19 pandemic [22]. They find that risk perception is positively and significantly correlated with an index of preventive health behaviours such as washing hands, wearing a mask and physical distancing and also point out that minimised as well as exaggerated risk perceptions can potentially undermine the adoption of behaviours to protect the [22]. Thus, higher risk perceptions lead to more protective behaviours, although taking effective measures can also reduce risk perception. Therefore, we highlight and suggest the importance of evaluating the accuracy of public risk perceptions and the correlation with taking positive protective behaviour measures. Among others, we should consider the vaccine acceptancy, being this one of the top 10 threats to global health in 2019 [60].
The providers of the different health systems in the different states must guarantee easy access to qualified information and support measures. Specifically, a transparent information policy that balances identifying risks, promoting appropriate behaviour and avoiding sensational reporting styles.
Policy-makers often conceptualise risk as the probability of contracting a disease multiplied by the magnitude of the consequences. However, our findings, which present evidence of how people perceived the risk of COVID−19 infection in Spain in the first wave, clearly illustrate that risk perceptions are consistently correlated with a number of experiential and sociocultural factors. More specifically, it is shown that risk perception among the population is higher in those with direct personal experience of the virus.
Therefore, health risk communication messages tend to be more effective when they include information on the effectiveness of measures aimed at protecting people from illness personally as well as socially.
Cori et al. indicate that knowledge implies the growth of collective awareness, increased self-efficacy and empowerment to contribute to political decision-making [61]. Mutual trust and dependence on local communication networks among peers could exponentially increase the possibilities to apply flexible measures, introducing concepts that promote health and well-being linked to healing, collaboration and solidarity. Therefore, the implementation of community interventions is recommended mainly in population groups in which risk perception is poorer.
Although this study is only observational and could be expanded with experimental studies, what does seem clear is that a better understanding of the knowledge that people have, as well as the social and cultural factors that accompany them, help to understand the risk perception of COVID−19 contagion in the world and its role in motivating preventive health behaviours. This information could help policymakers to design evidence-based risk communication strategies.
Therefore, future research is advised to consider expanding this research.

Author Contributions

J.M.M.D., D.D.P., D.P.O., A.M.R.V. and I.F.J., participated in the conception, design of survey and data collection. A.M.R.V. and A.B.E. contributed to the analysis and in the interpretation of data. J.M.M.D., I.F.J., A.B.E. and A.M.R.V. participated in the writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This project has been endorsed by the SEPAR-Respiratory Nursing Department and the International Nursing Network. It also had the collaboration of the Nursing Associations of Madrid and Cantabria, the Cantabrian Health Service (Cantabrian School of Health and Sub-directorate of Primary Care). Special thanks to Lina Pérez Méndez (Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research Unit of the Hospital Universitario Nuestra Señora de Candelaria. CIBER. Santa Cruz de Tenerife) as a consultant in the project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Qin, Q. Unique epidemiological and clinical features of the emerging 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) implicate special control measures. J. Med. Virol. 2020, 92, 568–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Huang, C.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Ren, L.; Zhao, J.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Fan, G.; Xu, J.; Gu, X.; et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020, 395, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Leppin, A.L.; Gionfriddo, M.R.; Kessler, M.; Brito, J.P.; Mair, F.S.; Gallacher, K.; Wang, Z.; Erwin, P.J.; Sylvester, T.; Boehmer, K.; et al. Preventing 30-Day Hospital Readmissions. JAMA Int. Med. 2014, 174, 1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cevik, M.; Bamford, C.G.G.; Ho, A. COVID-19 pandemic—A focused review for clinicians. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 842–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tolksdorf, K.; Buda, S.; Schuler, E.; Wieler, L.H.; Haas, W. Influenza-associated pneumonia as reference to assess seriousness of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Eurosurveillance 2020, 25, 2000258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kowalik, M.M.; Trzonkowski, P.; Łasińska-Kowara, M.; Mital, A.; Smiatacz, T.; Jaguszewski, M. COVID-19—Toward a comprehensive understanding of the disease. Cardiol. J. 2020, 27, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. He, F.; Deng, Y.; Li, W. Coronavirus disease 2019: What we know? J. Med. Virol. 2020, 92, 719–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Han, Y.; Yang, H. The transmission and diagnosis of 2019 novel coronavirus infection disease (COVID-19): A Chinese perspective. J. Med. Virol. 2020, 92, 639–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lednicky, J.A.; Lauzardo, M.; Hugh Fan, Z.; Jutla, A.; Tilly, T.B.; Gangwar, M.; Usmani, M.; Shankar, S.N.; Mohamed, K.; Eiguren-Fernandez, A.; et al. Viable SARS-CoV-2 in the air of a hospital room with COVID-19 patients. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 100, 476–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. van Doremalen, N.; Bushmaker, T.; Morris, D.H.; Holbrook, M.G.; Gamble, A.; Williamson, B.N.; Tamin, A.; Harcourt, J.L.; Thornburg, N.J.; Gerber, S.I.; et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1564–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Santamaria, J.; Hortal, J. Chasing the ghost of infection past: Identifying thresholds of change during the COVID-19 infection in Spain. BMJ Yale 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ceylan, Z. Estimation of COVID-19 prevalence in Italy, Spain, and France. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 729, 138817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tobías, A. Evaluation of the lockdowns for the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Italy and Spain after one month follow up. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 725, 138539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hsiang, S.; Allen, D.; Annan-Phan, S.; Bell, K.; Bolliger, I.; Chong, T.; Druckenmiller, H.; Huang, L.Y.; Hultgren, A.; Krasovich, E.; et al. The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature 2020, 584, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Signorelli, C.; Scognamiglio, T.; Odone, A. COVID-19 in Italy: Impact of containment measures and prevalence estimates of infection in the general population. Acta Biomed. 2020, 91, 175–179. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ministerio de la Presidencia R con las C y MD. Real Decreto 463/2020, de 14 de marzo, por el que se declara el estado de alarma para la gestión de la situación de crisis sanitaria ocasionada por el COVID-19. Diario La Ley 2020, 67. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2020-3692 (accessed on 1 December 2020).
  17. Lohiniva, A.-L.; Sane, J.; Sibenberg, K.; Puumalainen, T.; Salminen, M. Understanding coronavirus disease (COVID-19) risk perceptions among the public to enhance risk communication efforts: A practical approach for outbreaks, Finland, February 2020. Eurosurveillance 2020, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Huynh, T.L.; Toan-Luu, D.H. The COVID-19 risk perception: A survey on socioeconomics and media attention. Econ. Bull. 2020, 40, 758–764. [Google Scholar]
  19. Malecki, K.M.C.; Keating, J.A.; Safdar, N. Crisis Communication and Public Perception of COVID-19 Risk in the Era of Social Media. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brewer, N.T.; Weinstein, N.D.; Cuite, C.L.; Herrington, J.E. Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Ann. Behav. Med. 2004, 27, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ding, Y.; Du, X.; Li, Q.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, Q.; Tan, X.; Liu, Q. Risk perception of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its related factors among college students in China during quarantine. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dryhurst, S.; Schneider, C.R.; Kerr, J.; Freeman, A.L.J.; Recchia, G.; van der Bles, A.M.; Spiegelhalter, D.; van der Linden, S. Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. J. Risk Res. 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Irigoyen-Camacho, M.E.; Velazquez-Alva, M.C.; Zepeda-Zepeda, M.A.; Cabrer-Rosales, M.F.; Lazarevich, I.; Castano-Seiquer, A. Effect of Income Level and Perception of Susceptibility and Severity of COVID-19 on Stay-at-Home Preventive Behavior in a Group of Older Adults in Mexico City. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Atchison, C.; Bowman, L.; Vriten, C.; Redd, R.; Pristera, P.; Eaton, J.W.; Ward, H. Perceptions and behavioural responses of the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey of UK Adults. BMJ Yale 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Barber, S.J.; Kim, H. COVID-19 Worries and Behavior Changes in Older and Younger Men and Women. J. Gerontol. Ser. B 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Xu, J.; Peng, Z. People at Risk of Influenza Pandemics: The Evolution of Perception and Behavior. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0144868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ferrer, R.A.; Klein, W.M.P.; Persoskie, A.; Avishai-Yitshak, A.; Sheeran, P. The Tripartite Model of Risk Perception (TRIRISK): Distinguishing Deliberative, Affective, and Experiential Components of Perceived Risk. Ann. Behav. Med. 2016, 50, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wilson, R.S.; Zwickle, A.; Walpole, H. Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception. Risk Anal. 2019, 39, 777–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wise, T.; Zbozinek, T.D.; Michelini, G.; Hagan, C.C.; Mobbs, D. Changes in risk perception and self-reported protective behaviour during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2020, 7, 200742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, W.; Rothschild, D.; Goel, S.; Gelman, A. Forecasting elections with non-representative polls. Int. J. Forecast. 2015, 31, 980–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bueno, E.; Zarraga, A.; Iztueta, A. Ajuste de Muestras con Información Auxiliar, 9801, Vitoria-Gasteiz. Available online: https://www.eustat.eus/document/datos/ct_01_c.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2019).
  32. Rosenthal, R.; DiMatteo, M.R.R. Meta-Analysis: Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods for Literature Reviews. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Lenhard, W.; Lenhard, A. Computation of Effect Sizes. Psychom 2014, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ferguson, C.J. An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract. 2009, 40, 532–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Hosmer, D.; Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  36. Barr, M.; Raphael, B.; Taylor, M.; Stevens, G.; Jorm, L.; Giffin, M.; Lujic, S. Pandemic influenza in Australia: Using telephone surveys to measure perceptions of threat and willingness to comply. BMC Infect. Dis. 2008, 8, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Niepel, C.; Kranz, D.; Borgonovi, F.; Emslander, V.; Greiff, S. The coronavirus (COVID-19) fatality risk perception of US adult residents in March and April 2020. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2020, 25, 883–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Samadipour, E.; Ghardashi, F.; Aghaei, N. Evaluation of Risk Perception of Covid-19 Disease: A Community-based Participatory Study. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2020, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Tomczyk, S.; Rahn, M.; Schmidt, S. Social Distancing and Stigma: Association Between Compliance with Behavioral Recommendations, Risk Perception, and Stigmatizing Attitudes During the COVID-19 Outbreak. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bish, A.; Michie, S. Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: A review. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2010, 15, 797–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Gebhard, C.; Regitz-Zagrosek, V.; Neuhauser, H.K.; Morgan, R.; Klein, S.L. Impact of sex and gender on COVID-19 outcomes in Europe. Biol. Sex Differ. 2020, 11, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wenham, C.; Smith, J.; Morgan, R. COVID-19: The gendered impacts of the outbreak. Lancet 2020, 395, 846–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Del Río Lozano, M.; García Calvente, M.d.M. Cuidados y abordaje de la pandemia de COVID-19 con enfoque de género. Gac. Sanit. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, J.; Montero Muñoz, J.; Jiménez, M.F.; Garcia-Prendes, C.G.; Rivera, M.M.; Armas, L.G. Variables asociadas con mortalidad en una población de pacientes mayores de 80 años y con algún grado de dependencia funcional, hospitalizados por COVID-19 en un Servicio de Geriatría. Rev. Esp. Geriatr. Gerontol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. He, S.; Chen, S.; Kong, L.; Liu, W. Analysis of Risk Perceptions and Related Factors Concerning COVID-19 Epidemic in Chongqing, China. J. Commun. Health 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ruiz-Frutos, C.; Ortega-Moreno, M.; Allande-Cussó, R.; Dominguez-Salas, S.; Dias, A.; Gomez-Salgado, J. Health-related factors of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic among non-health workers in Spain. Saf. Sci. 2021, 133, 104996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Abdel Wahed, W.Y.; Hefzy, E.M.; Ahmed, M.I.; Hamed, N.S. Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perception of Health Care Workers Regarding COVID-19, A Cross-Sectional Study from Egypt. J. Commun. Health 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cabarkapa, S.; Nadjidai, S.E.; Murgier, J.; Ng, C.H. The psychological impact of COVID-19 and other viral epidemics on frontline healthcare workers and ways to address it: A rapid systematic review. Brain Behav. Immun. Health 2020, 8, 100144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Peres, D.; Monteiro, J.; Almeida, M.A.; Ladeira, R. Risk perception of COVID-19 among Portuguese healthcare professionals and the general population. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 105, 434–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Man, M.A.; Toma, C.; Motoc, N.S.; Necrelescu, O.L.; Bondor, C.I.; Chis, A.F.; Lesan, A.; Pop, C.M.; Todea, D.A.; Dantes, E.; et al. Disease Perception and Coping with Emotional Distress During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey Among Medical Staff. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Szabo, A.; Ábel, K.; Boros, S. Attitudes toward COVID-19 and stress levels in Hungary: Effects of age, perceived health status, and gender. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 2020, 12, 572–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lange, S.J.; Ritchey, M.D.; Goodman, A.B.; Dias, T.; Twentyman, E.; Fuld, J.; Schieve, L.A.; Imperatore, G.; Benoit, S.R.; Kite-Powell, A.; et al. Potential Indirect Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Use of Emergency Departments for Acute Life-Threatening Conditions—United States, January–May 2020. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 795–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Romaguera, R.; Ribera, A.; Güell-Viaplana, F.; Tomas-Querol, C.; Munoz-Camacho, J.F.; Agudelo, V. Decrease in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction admissions in Catalonia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. (Engl. Ed.) 2020, 73, 778–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Naccarato, M.; Scali, I.; Olivo, S.; Ajvcevic, M.; Stella, A.B.; Furlanis, G.; Lugnan, C.; Caruso, P.; Peratoner, A.; Cominotto, F.; et al. Has COVID-19 played an unexpected “stroke” on the chain of survival? J. Neurol. Sci. 2020, 414, 116889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Guan, W.; Liang, W.; Zhao, Y.; Liang, H.; Chen, Z.; Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Chen, R.; Tang, C.; Wang, T.; et al. Comorbidity and its impact on 1590 patients with COVID-19 in China: A nationwide analysis. Eur. Respir. J. 2020, 55, 2000547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Richardson, S.; Hirsch, J.S.; Narasimhan, M.; Crawford, J.M.; McGinn, T.; Davidson, K.W.; Barnaby, D.P.; Becker, L.B.; Chelico, J.D.; Cohen, S.L.; et al. Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA 2020, 323, 2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, B.; Li, R.; Lu, Z.; Huang, Y. Does comorbidity increase the risk of patients with COVID-19: Evidence from meta-analysis. Aging 2020, 12, 6049–6057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Baldassarre, A.; Giorgi, G.; Alessio, F.; Lulli, L.G.; Arcangeli, G.; Mucci, N. Stigma and Discrimination (SAD) at the Time of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sauer, K.S.; Jungmann, S.M.; Witthöft, M. Emotional and Behavioral Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Health Anxiety, Intolerance of Uncertainty, and Distress (In)Tolerance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. PAHO. Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019. Available online: https://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14916:ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019&Itemid=135&lang=es (accessed on 20 January 2019).
  61. Cori, L.; Bianchi, F.; Cadum, E.; Anthonj, C. Risk Perception and COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Weights assigned to each substratum.
Table 1. Weights assigned to each substratum.
Age GroupsMenWomenTotal
Up to 30 years2.81010.89421.3703
31 to 64 years1.23790.53150.7424
More than 64 years2.61003.89173.2073
Total1.56350.74681.0000
Table
Table 2. Variables and distribution.
Table 2. Variables and distribution.
Perception of the Risk of InfectionN%
Low748146.2
Medium540833.4
High331220.4
Age
Up to 30265116.4
31−64970059.9
65 and over385023.8
Gender
Female834851.5
Male785348.5
Level of studies
Primary15759.7
Secondary549933.9
University graduates912656.3
Working population
No498330.8
Yes 69.2
Marital status
Single472629.2
Separated/Divorced15449.5
Married/Cohabiting937657.9
Widowed5553.4
Where they work
Working from home627248.0
Working outside the home680252.0
Income: quartiles
First quartile251916.5
Second quartile540535.3
Third quartile572937.4
Fourth quartile165510.8
Who they live with
Living alone204712.6
Living with others 87.4
Health status during confinement
Good/Very good 76.2
Average338320.9
Poor/Very poor4642.9
Protective measures
Adequate 71.9
Inadequate455828.1
You or relative work in healthcare
A family member works in healthcare
No 76.6
Yes379723.4
A member of the household is infected
No 96.4
Yes5793.6
How they get information
Press/Radio/TV 68.2
Social networks/WhatsApp15219.4
Official media/Scientific documents363022.4
Source: compiled by the authors.
Table
Table 3. Joint distribution between Perception of the risk of infection and different variables. N and percentages in brackets.
Table 3. Joint distribution between Perception of the risk of infection and different variables. N and percentages in brackets.
LowMediumHighPearson Chi-Squarep ValueSize Effect dCohen
Gender (N = 16,201)
Male3933 (50.1)2520 (32.1)1400 (17.8)
Female3548 (42.5)5408 (33.4)3312 (20.4)108.98<0.0010.165
Age (N = 16,201)
Up to 301363 (51.4)782 (29.5)506 (19.1)
31−644107 (42.3)3450 (35.6)2143 (22.1)
65 and over2011 (52.5)1175 (30.5)664 (17.2)147.09<0.0010.191
Education level (N = 16,201)
Primary629 (39.9)573 (36.4)374 (23.7)
Secondary2580 (46.9)1874 (34.1)1045 (19.0)
University graduates4271 (46.8)2962 (32.5)1893 (20.7)36.45<0.0010.095
Affect (N = 13,813)
None2556 (56.5)1364 (30.2)601 (13.3)
Low1746 (45.9)1273 (33.4)787 (20.7)
Medium1482 (42.5)1191 (34.1)818 (23.4)
High624 (41.2)490 (32.3)402 (26.5)
Maximum136 (30.6)148 (33.3)160 (36.0)360.88<0.0010.328
Marital status (N = 16,201)
Single2260 (47.8)1503 (31.8)963 (20.4)
Separated/Divorced726 (47.0)504 (32.6)314 (20.3)
Married/Cohabiting4217 (45.0)3256 (34.7)1903 (20.3)
Widowed278 (50.1)145 (26.1)132 (23.8)28.53<0.0010.084
Working population (N = 16,194)
Non-working pop.2736 (54.9)1493 (30.0)755 (15.1)
Working pop.4744 (42.3)3913 (34.9)2554 (22.8)241.89<0.0010.246
Place of work (N = 14,187)
At home3341 (53.3)2158 (34.4)773 (12.3)
Outside the home2364 (34.8)2354 (34.6)2083 (30.6)756.53<0.0010.475
Economic situation (Impact on income) (N = 16,201)
Good3731 (49.0)2332 (30.6)1550 (20.4)
Average2933 (43.8)2368 (35.4)1393 (20.8)
Poor817 (43.1)708 (37.4)369 (19.5)60.70<0.0010.123
Household income (N = 15,345)
1st quartile1244 (49.4)820 (32.6)455 (18.1)
2nd quartile2338 (43.2)1906 (35.3)1162 (21.5)
3rd quartile2618 (45.7)1888 (33.0)1223 (21.3)
4th quartile791 (47.8)494 (29.8)370 (22.4)41.68<0.0010.104
Who they live with (N = 16,201)
Living alone967 (47.2)634 (31.0)446 (21.8)
Living with other(s)6513 (46.0)4774 (33.7)2867 (20.3)6.700.0350.041
Health (N = 16,190)
Good/Very good6192 (50.2)4027 (32.6)2125 (17.2)
Average1169 (34.6)1248 (36.9)966 (28.6)
Poor/Very poor117 (25.2)132 (28.4)215 (46.3)527.86<0.0010.367
Protective measures used (N = 16,201)
Adequate5012 (43.0)3927 (33.7)2704 (23.2)
Inadequate2469 (54.2)1481 (32.5)609 (13.4)245.04<0.0010.248
You or relative work in healthcare
Family member works in healthcare (N = 16,201)
No6375 (51.4)4274 (34.5)1755 (14.1)
Yes1105 (29.1)1134 (29.9)1558 (41.0)1358.72<0.0010.605
Household member infected (N = 16,201)
No7334 (46.9)5241 (33.6)3046 (19.5)
Yes146 (25.3)166 (28.7)266 (46.0)252.43<0.0010.252
Where they get information (N = 16,201)
Press/Radio/TV5263 (47.6)3788 (34.3)1998 (18.1)
Social networks/WhatsApp741 (48.7)464 (30.5)316 (20.8)
Official media/Scientific documents1477 (40.7)1156 (31.8)998 (27.5)236.99<0.0010.244
Source: compiled by the authors.
Table
Table 4. Table classifying the prediction of the categories of Perception of the risk of infection in the multinomial logistic regression model.
Table 4. Table classifying the prediction of the categories of Perception of the risk of infection in the multinomial logistic regression model.
ClassificationPredicted
ObservedLowMediumHighPercent Correct
Low409048440182.2%
Medium255856261815.0%
High897326117649.0%
Overall Percentage67.9%12.3%19.8%52.4%
Source: compiled by the authors.
Table
Table 5. Parameters of the multinomial logistic regression analysis for the category “Perception of the risk of infection: Medium”. The reference category is: Low.
Table 5. Parameters of the multinomial logistic regression analysis for the category “Perception of the risk of infection: Medium”. The reference category is: Low.
Risk of Infection: MediumBStd. ErrorWaldSig.OR95% CI for OR
Lower BoundUpper Bound
Intercept−0.9380.09989,8210.000
Age0.0010.0020.3880.53410010.9981004
Affect (index)0.5020.0838,9830.000165214111935
Gender (female)0.2910.04542,4010.000133712251459
Working outside the home0.4570.046970.210.000157914421729
Health: poor/very poor0.4910.16489970.003163411852252
Health: average0.4550.059590.4990.000157714051770
Protective measures: adequate−0.1730.04812,7780.0000.8410.7650.925
Family member works in healthcare0.3470.05935,1150.000141512611586
A member of the household is infected0.2440.14528550.09112770.9621696
Information: official media0.0300.0560.0300.58410310.9251149
Information: social networks−0.2360.07891340.0030.7900.6780.921
Source: compiled by the authors.
Table
Table 6. Parameters of the multinomial logistic regression analysis for the category “Perception of the risk of infection: High”. The reference category is: Low.
Table 6. Parameters of the multinomial logistic regression analysis for the category “Perception of the risk of infection: High”. The reference category is: Low.
Risk of Infection: HighBStd. ErrorWaldSig.OR95% CI for OR
Lower BoundUpper Bound
Intercept−26990.132415,3220.000
Age0.0040.00232610.071100410001008
Affect (index)10190.101102,2910.000277022743375
Gender (female)0.4260.05657,4320.0001531137210.71
Working outside the home11170.061335,3980.000305727123445
Health: poor/very poor10.490.16383,2370.000443932236115
Health: average0.7880.069130,4680.000221019222519
Protective measures: adequate−0.6470.06794,3440.0000.5240.460.597
Family member works in healthcare14470.062539,4880.000425137624803
A member of the household is infected0.7730.14229,6490.000216710.642862
Information: official media0.2290.06612,1630.000125811061431
Information: social networks−0.0460.09502400.6240.9550.7931149
Source: compiled by the authors.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mansilla Domínguez, J.M.; Font Jiménez, I.; Belzunegui Eraso, A.; Peña Otero, D.; Díaz Pérez, D.; Recio Vivas, A.M. Risk Perception of COVID−19 Community Transmission among the Spanish Population. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238967

AMA Style

Mansilla Domínguez JM, Font Jiménez I, Belzunegui Eraso A, Peña Otero D, Díaz Pérez D, Recio Vivas AM. Risk Perception of COVID−19 Community Transmission among the Spanish Population. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(23):8967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238967

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mansilla Domínguez, José Miguel, Isabel Font Jiménez, Angel Belzunegui Eraso, David Peña Otero, David Díaz Pérez, and Ana María Recio Vivas. 2020. "Risk Perception of COVID−19 Community Transmission among the Spanish Population" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 23: 8967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238967

APA Style

Mansilla Domínguez, J. M., Font Jiménez, I., Belzunegui Eraso, A., Peña Otero, D., Díaz Pérez, D., & Recio Vivas, A. M. (2020). Risk Perception of COVID−19 Community Transmission among the Spanish Population. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), 8967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238967

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop