PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, was one of the greatest modern public health crises that the world has faced. Countries undertook sweeping public health and social measures (PHSM); including environmental actions such as disinfection and ventilation; surveillance and response, such as contact tracing and quarantine; physical, such as crowd control; and restrictions on travel. This study focuses on the public perceptions of PHSM in two countries, Japan and the United Kingdom (UK) as examples of high-income countries that adopted different measures over the course of the pandemic.
METHODS: This study was conducted between November 2021 and February 2022, a period in which the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was predominant. Fourteen online focus group discussions were conducted in each country. Overall, 106 total participants (50 from the UK and 56 from Japan) participated in 23 focus groups (11 in the UK and 12 in Japan) with an average of three to six participants per group. Both countries were compared using a thematic analysis method.
RESULTS: Both countries\' participants agreed that vaccination was an effective measure. However, they did not favor mandatory vaccination policies. Working from home was well accepted by both sides, but they reported that schools should have continued to be opened as before COVID-19. Both sides of participants expressed that temperature testing alone in indoor facilities was ineffective as a COVID-19 control measure. There were contrasting views on face covering rules in public spaces, international and domestic movement restrictions. High acceptance of mask-wearing was reflective of Japanese customs, while it was accepted as a strong recommendation for participants in the UK. Japanese participants favored quarantine for international travel, while the UK participants supported banning non-essential travel.
CONCLUSIONS: Similar and contrasting views on PHSM against COVID-19 between Japan and the UK demonstrated how policies in controlling an epidemic should be tailored by country with respect to its norms, cultures, economic and disease burden. Our findings may guide how policy makers can engage with the public through effective health communication and consider regulations that are aligned with the public\'s views and capacities in changing their behavior for future pandemic preparedness.
METHODS: This study was conducted between November 2021 and February 2022, a period in which the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was predominant. Fourteen online focus group discussions were conducted in each country. Overall, 106 total participants (50 from the UK and 56 from Japan) participated in 23 focus groups (11 in the UK and 12 in Japan) with an average of three to six participants per group. Both countries were compared using a thematic analysis method.
RESULTS: Both countries\' participants agreed that vaccination was an effective measure. However, they did not favor mandatory vaccination policies. Working from home was well accepted by both sides, but they reported that schools should have continued to be opened as before COVID-19. Both sides of participants expressed that temperature testing alone in indoor facilities was ineffective as a COVID-19 control measure. There were contrasting views on face covering rules in public spaces, international and domestic movement restrictions. High acceptance of mask-wearing was reflective of Japanese customs, while it was accepted as a strong recommendation for participants in the UK. Japanese participants favored quarantine for international travel, while the UK participants supported banning non-essential travel.
CONCLUSIONS: Similar and contrasting views on PHSM against COVID-19 between Japan and the UK demonstrated how policies in controlling an epidemic should be tailored by country with respect to its norms, cultures, economic and disease burden. Our findings may guide how policy makers can engage with the public through effective health communication and consider regulations that are aligned with the public\'s views and capacities in changing their behavior for future pandemic preparedness.
摘要：
背景：COVID-19大流行，由SARS-CoV-2引起的，是世界面临的最大的现代公共卫生危机之一。各国采取了全面的公共卫生和社会措施(PHSM)；包括环境行动，如消毒和通风；监测和响应，如接触者追踪和隔离；物理，例如人群控制；和旅行限制。这项研究的重点是两个国家的公众对PHSM的看法，日本和英国(英国)是高收入国家在大流行过程中采取不同措施的例子。
方法：这项研究于2021年11月至2022年2月之间进行，在此期间SARS-CoV-2的Omicron变体占主导地位。在每个国家进行了14次在线焦点小组讨论。总的来说,共有106名参与者（英国50名，日本56名）参加了23个焦点小组（英国11名，日本12名），平均每组3至6名参与者。使用专题分析方法对这两个国家进行了比较。
结果：两个国家的参与者都认为疫苗接种是一种有效的措施。然而,他们不赞成强制性疫苗接种政策。在家工作被双方都接受，但他们报告说，学校应该像COVID-19之前一样继续开放。参与者双方都表示，仅在室内设施中进行温度测试作为COVID-19控制措施是无效的。关于公共场所的面部覆盖规则有不同的观点，国际和国内行动限制。戴口罩的接受度很高反映了日本的习俗，虽然它被接受为英国参与者的强烈推荐。日本参与者赞成对国际旅行进行隔离，而英国参与者支持禁止非必要旅行。
结论：日本和英国之间关于针对COVID-19的PHSM的相似和不同观点表明，控制流行病的政策应如何由国家根据其规范来调整，文化,经济和疾病负担。我们的发现可以指导政策制定者如何通过有效的健康沟通与公众接触，并考虑与公众的观点和能力相一致的法规，以改变他们的行为，以应对未来的大流行。
方法：这项研究于2021年11月至2022年2月之间进行，在此期间SARS-CoV-2的Omicron变体占主导地位。在每个国家进行了14次在线焦点小组讨论。总的来说,共有106名参与者（英国50名，日本56名）参加了23个焦点小组（英国11名，日本12名），平均每组3至6名参与者。使用专题分析方法对这两个国家进行了比较。
结果：两个国家的参与者都认为疫苗接种是一种有效的措施。然而,他们不赞成强制性疫苗接种政策。在家工作被双方都接受，但他们报告说，学校应该像COVID-19之前一样继续开放。参与者双方都表示，仅在室内设施中进行温度测试作为COVID-19控制措施是无效的。关于公共场所的面部覆盖规则有不同的观点，国际和国内行动限制。戴口罩的接受度很高反映了日本的习俗，虽然它被接受为英国参与者的强烈推荐。日本参与者赞成对国际旅行进行隔离，而英国参与者支持禁止非必要旅行。
结论：日本和英国之间关于针对COVID-19的PHSM的相似和不同观点表明，控制流行病的政策应如何由国家根据其规范来调整，文化,经济和疾病负担。我们的发现可以指导政策制定者如何通过有效的健康沟通与公众接触，并考虑与公众的观点和能力相一致的法规，以改变他们的行为，以应对未来的大流行。
