Wed, Jun 25, 2025
[Archive]
.png)
Volume 10, Issue 1 (2-2024)
jhehp 2024, 10(1): 44-51 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kateb F, Mirchooli F, Mostafazadeh R. Determining Community Attitudes toward Various Aspects of the COVID-19 Pandemic Using the Social Profile Ratio Technique. jhehp 2024; 10 (1) :44-51
URL: http://jhehp.zums.ac.ir/article-1-623-en.html
URL: http://jhehp.zums.ac.ir/article-1-623-en.html
1- Department of Natural Resources, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.
2- Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran.
2- Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran.
Abstract: (1328 Views)
Background: Assessing the changes in public attitudes toward pandemics is crucial in adapting public health strategies to changing circumstances. This study aims to assess the community’s attitude toward the COVID-19 pandemic using the Social Profile Ratio (SPR) method among different occupational groups in Ardabil province.
Methods: Employing a cross-sectional survey design, this research assessed the attitudes of 230 respondents toward the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020. Then, the standard SPR method, along with the Index of Resolution (IR), was utilized to analyze the SPR scores, considering different aspects (prevention, control, treatment, and impacts) of the pandemic.
Results: According to the SPR values, the occupational groups had different points of view. The highest life expectancy (30 years) was attributed to employees, students, collegians, and instructors. Notably, employees and university professors had the highest SPR and IR values (9.343 and 1) for the prevention indicator. Regarding the control indicator, the unemployed and university professors had SPR and IR values of 5.36 and 0.733, respectively. The highest SPR value of 44.11 in terms of treatment was attributed to employees, while students had the highest SPR value of 10.03 in terms of impact indicator.
Conclusion: The study identified employees, university professors, and the unemployed as the most effective groups across prevention, control, treatment, and impact indicators.
Methods: Employing a cross-sectional survey design, this research assessed the attitudes of 230 respondents toward the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020. Then, the standard SPR method, along with the Index of Resolution (IR), was utilized to analyze the SPR scores, considering different aspects (prevention, control, treatment, and impacts) of the pandemic.
Results: According to the SPR values, the occupational groups had different points of view. The highest life expectancy (30 years) was attributed to employees, students, collegians, and instructors. Notably, employees and university professors had the highest SPR and IR values (9.343 and 1) for the prevention indicator. Regarding the control indicator, the unemployed and university professors had SPR and IR values of 5.36 and 0.733, respectively. The highest SPR value of 44.11 in terms of treatment was attributed to employees, while students had the highest SPR value of 10.03 in terms of impact indicator.
Conclusion: The study identified employees, university professors, and the unemployed as the most effective groups across prevention, control, treatment, and impact indicators.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Environmental Health, Sciences, and Engineering
Received: 2023/12/12 | Accepted: 2024/01/27 | Published: 2024/02/7
Received: 2023/12/12 | Accepted: 2024/01/27 | Published: 2024/02/7
References
1. Samal J. A Historical Exploration of Pandemics of some Selected Diseases in the World. Int J Health Sci Res. 2014; 4(2): 165-9. [Google Scholar]
2. Slavin P. The Birth of the Black Death: Biology, Climate, Environment, and the Beginnings of the Second Plague Pandemic in Early Fourteenth-Century Central Asia. Environ Hist. 2023; 28(2): 300-34. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
3. Baud D, Qi X, Nielsen-Saines K, Musso D, Pomar L, Favre G. Real Estimates of Mortality Following COVID-19 Infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020; 20(7): 773. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
4. Hazbavi Z, Mostfazadeh R, Alaei N, Azizi E. Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the COVID-19 Incidence Pattern in Iran. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021; 28: 13605-15. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
5. Hosseinzadeh P, Zareipour M, Baljani E, Moradali MR. Social Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Systematic Review. Invest Educ Enferm. 2022; 40(1): 7-14. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
6. Lu R, Zhao X, Li J, Niu P, Yang B, Wu H, et al. Genomic Characterisation and Epidemiology of 2019 Novel Coronavirus: Implications for Virus Origins and Receptor Binding. lancet. 2020; 395(10224): 565-74. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
7. Ali I, Alharbi OM. COVID-19: Disease, Management, Treatment, and Social Impact. Sci Total Environ. 2020; 728: 138861. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
8. Logue JK, Franko NM, McCulloch DJ, McDonald D, Magedson A, Wolf CR, et al. Sequelae in Adults at 6 Months after COVID-19 Infection. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(2): e210830. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
9. Nicola M, Alsafi Z, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, Iosifidis C, et al. The Socio-economic Implications of the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19): A Review. Int J Surg. 2020; 78: 185-93. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
10. Pouralkhas NoKandehei M, Amanjahani V, Mostafazadeh R, Hazbavi Z. Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture. Ext Dev Watershed Manag. 2021; 9(32): 67-77. [Article]
11. Movahed E, Zareipour M, Jadgal MS, Rezaee Moradali M, Baljani E. Investigating Health Literacy and Its Relationship with the Social Influences of COVID-19 in Police Force Employees. J Health Lit. 2023; 8(4): 12-8. [Google Scholar]
12. Haleem A, Javaid M, Vaishya R, Deshmukh SG. Areas of Academic Research with the Impact of COVID-19. Am J Emerg Med. 2020; 38(7): 1524-6. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
13. Singh J, Singh J. COVID-19 and Its Impact on Society. Electronic Res J Soc Sci Humanit. 2020; 2. [Google Scholar]
14. Abdelhafiz AS, Mohammed Z, Ibrahim ME, Ziady HH, Alorabi M, Ayyad M, et al. Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitude of Egyptians toward the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). J Community Health. 2020; 45: 881-90. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
15. Ettman CK, Abdalla SM, Cohen GH, Sampson L, Vivier PM, Galea S. Prevalence of Depression Symptoms in US Adults before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(9): e2019686. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
16. Mazza MG, De Lorenzo R, Conte C, Poletti S, Vai B, Bollettini I, et al. Anxiety and Depression in COVID-19 Survivors: Role of Inflammatory and Clinical Predictors. Brain Behav Immun. 2020; 89: 594-600. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
17. González-Sanguino C, Ausín B, Castellanos MÁ, Saiz J, López-Gómez A, Ugidos C, et al. Mental Health Consequences during the Initial Stage of the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) in Spain. Brain Behav Immun. 2020; 87: 172-6. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
18. Harper CA, Satchell LP, Fido D, Latzman RD. Functional Fear Predicts Public Health Compliance in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2021; 19: 1875-88. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
19. Creighton JL, Priscoli JD, Dunning CM, Alexandria VA. Public Involvement Techniques. Institute for Water Resources, US Corps of Engineers Alexandria, VA. 1998; 16.
20. Cop WD. Creating a Policy Profile. Public Involvement and Dispute; 229. [Google Scholar]
21. Asiamah N, Mensah H, Oteng-Abayie EF. General, Target, and Accessible Population: Demystifying the Concepts for Effective Sampling. Qual Rep. 2017; 22(6): 1607-21. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
22. Cochran WG. Relative Accuracy of Systematic and Stratified Random Samples for a Certain Class of Populations. Ann Math Stat. 1946; 17(2): 164-77. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
23. Sekaran U, Bougie R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. John Wiley & Sons; 2016. [Google Scholar]
24. Conroy RM. The RCSI Sample Size Handbook. A Rough Guide. 2016; 59-61. [Google Scholar]
25. Braun V, Clarke V, Boulton E, Davey L, McEvoy C. The Online Survey as a Qualitative Research Tool. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2021; 24(6): 641-54. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
26. Singh AS. Common Procedures for Development, Validity and Reliability of a Questionnaire. Int J Econ Commer Manag. 2017; 5(5): 790-801. [Google Scholar]
27. Kateb F, Emali-Ouri A, Mostafazadeh R, Sharari M, Hazbavi Z. Determining the Attitude of Government and Local Stakeholders in Participatory Decision-making for Watershed Management Practices in Unar Chay Watershed, Meshgin Shahr, Iran. J Watershed Manag Res. 2021; 12(24): 1-12. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
28. McDermaid KK, Barnstable DC. User Step by Step Guide to Conducting a Social Profile for Watershed Planning. University of Illinois. Nat Resour Environ Sci. 2001; 96.
29. Malekli H, Mostafazadeh R, Esmali Ouri A, Sefidi K, Mirzaei S. Determining the Social Profile Ratio in Decision-Making Process of Water and Soil Resources Sustainable Management, Emamkandi Watershed, Urmia Province. J Water Soil Resour Conserv. 2023; 12(4): 59-71. [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
© 2024 The Author(s)
