Search results

BACKGROUND: Mobility restriction is the most effective measure to control the spread of infectious disease at its early stage, especially if a cure and vaccine are not available. When control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required strong precautionary measures, lockdowns were necessarily implemented in countries around the globe. Public health risk communication about the justification and scope of a lockdown was challenging as it involved a conflict between solidarity and individual liberty and a trade-off between various values across groups with different socioeconomic statuses. In the study, we examined public responses to the government-announced "circuit breaker" (a local term for lockdown) at four-time points in Singapore: (1) entry, (2) extension, (3) exit of lockdown 'phase 1' and (4) entry of lockdown 'phase 2'. METHODS: We randomly collected 100 comments from the relevant articles on new organisations' Facebook and Instagram pages and conducted preliminary coding. Later, additional random 20 comments were collected to check the data saturation. Content analysis was focused on identifying themes that emerged from the responses across the four-time points. RESULTS: At the entry, public support for the lockdown was prevalent; yet most responses were abstract with uncertainty. At six weeks of lockdown, initial public responses with uncertainty turned into salient narratives of their lived experiences and hardship with lockdown and unmasking of societal weaknesses caused by COVID-19. At the entry to phase 2, responses were centred on social-economic impact, disparity, and lockdown burnout with the contested notion of continuing solidarity. A temporal pattern was seen in the rationalisation of the lockdown experience from trust, anxiety, attribution of pandemic and lockdown, blaming of non-compliant behaviours, and confusion. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicated a temporal evolution of public responses from solidarity, attribution of the sustained pandemic, increasing ambiguity towards strong ...

Prenatal genetic technologies now are being implemented in LMICs, and while there is much research on the ethical, legal and social implications of such technologies in Western countries, there is a paucity of such research in LMICs, which have diverse cultural, religious, political, financial and health service contexts. This study aimed to explore views about women's autonomous decision-making for antenatal screening held by women, men and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Pakistan. A Q-methodology study was conducted during June 2016 to January 2018 in Lahore, Pakistan. A total of 137 participants (60 women, 57 men, 20 HCPs) rank-ordered 41 statements. Following by-person factor analysis, four distinct viewpoints were identified. Three of these represent views held by women and men only: autonomous decision-making requires directive advice from doctors; autonomous decision-making requires the husband's involvement, where independent decision-making by the woman is considered culturally inappropriate; and opting for antenatal screening is a foregone decision. One contrasting viewpoint represents predominantly HCPs: autonomous decision-making is the couple's responsibility. These findings highlight that Western approaches to facilitating women's autonomy for antenatal screening are unlikely to be suitable for use in Pakistan. Instead, culturally appropriate practice guidelines are needed in LMICs to enable HCPs to adopt shared decision-making approaches in a way that enables them to facilitate active and joint decision-making by couples, while ensuring women exercise their autonomy.