Responding to COVID-19: an exploration of EU country responses and directions for further research.

Responding to COVID-19: an exploration of EU country responses and directions for further research.

Publication date: Oct 08, 2024

During COVID-19, scientists advising policymakers were forced to deal with high uncertainty and risks in an environment of unknowns. Evidence on which policies and measures were effective in responding to the pandemic remains underdeveloped to answer the key question ‘what worked and why?’. This study aims to provide a basis for studies to go further to answer this critical question, by starting to look efficacy or how countries ensured that health services remained available and what measures were enacted to protect and treat their populations and workers. We applied a three-phase sequential mixed methods design. In phase one, we started with a qualitative content analysis of the EU Country Profile reports to retrieve and analyse data on COVID-19 responses taken by 29 countries in the European region. Phase two is the step of data transformation, converting qualitative data into numerical codes that can be statistically analysed, which are then used in a quantitative cross-national comparative analysis that comprises phase three. The quantifying process resulted in a numerical indicator to measure the ‘response efficacy’ of the 29 countries, which is used in phase three’s association of the response measure with country performance indicators that were derived from European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) COVID-19 case and death rate data. Through comparing the frequency of COVID-19 measures taken, we found that many countries in the European region undertook similar actions but with differing effects. The cross-national analysis revealed an expected relationship: a lower COVID-19 response efficacy appeared to be related to a higher case and death rates. Still, marked variation for countries with similar response efficacy indicators was found, signalling that the combination and sequence of implementation of COVID-19 responses is possibly just as important as their efficacy in terms of which response measures were implemented. Many European countries employed similar COVID-19 measures but still had a wide variation in their case and death rates. To unravel the question ‘what worked and why?’, we suggest directions from which more refined research can be designed that will eventually contribute to mitigate the impact of future pandemics and to be better prepared for their economic and human burden.

Open Access PDF

Concepts Keywords
Covid Country responses
Death COVID-19
Future Europe
Policymakers Mixed methods
Underdeveloped

Semantics

Type Source Name
disease MESH COVID-19
disease IDO country
disease MESH uncertainty
disease IDO process
disease MESH death
drug DRUGBANK Tropicamide
disease MESH Long Covid
pathway REACTOME Reproduction
disease MESH emergency
drug DRUGBANK Cysteamine
drug DRUGBANK Serine
disease MESH infection
drug DRUGBANK Indoleacetic acid
drug DRUGBANK L-Phenylalanine
disease MESH aids
drug DRUGBANK Methylergometrine
disease IDO object
drug DRUGBANK Spinosad
drug DRUGBANK Pentaerythritol tetranitrate
disease MESH tics
drug DRUGBANK Hexocyclium
drug DRUGBANK Coenzyme M
drug DRUGBANK L-Aspartic Acid
disease IDO history
drug DRUGBANK Troleandomycin
disease MESH pneumonia
drug DRUGBANK Trestolone
disease IDO contact tracing

Original Article

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)