Polarization and Health-related Behaviours and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Systematic Review Protocol

Overview

Journal F1000Res

Specialties Biomedical Engineering
Science

Date 2024 Jul 19

PMID 39026510

Authors

Aziz Mert Ipekci

Maximilian Filsinger

Diana Buitrago-Garcia

Cristopher I Kobler Betancourt

Annika Frahsa

Nicola Low

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic affected people's health behaviours and health outcomes. Political or affective polarization could be associated with health behaviours such as mask-wearing or vaccine uptake and with health outcomes, e.g., infection or mortality rate. Political polarization relates to divergence or spread of ideological beliefs and affective polarization is about dislike between people of different political groups, such as ideologies or parties. The objectives of this study are to investigate and synthesize evidence about associations between both forms of polarization and COVID-19 health behaviours and outcomes.

Methods: In this systematic review, we will include quantitative studies that assess the relationship between political or affective polarization and COVID-19-related behaviours and outcomes, including adherence to mask mandates, vaccine uptake, infection and mortality rate. We will use a predetermined strategy to search EMBASE, Medline (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Global Health (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit (EBSCOhost), WHO COVID-19 Database, iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio (NIH) and Google Scholar from 2019 to September 8 2023. One reviewer will screen unique records according to eligibility criteria. A second reviewer will verify the selection. Data extraction, using pre-piloted electronic forms, will follow a similar process. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed using the JBI checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. We will summarise the included studies descriptively and examine the heterogeneity between studies. Quantitative data pooling might not be feasible due to variations in measurement methods used to evaluate exposure, affective and political polarization. If there are enough relevant studies for statistical data synthesis, we will conduct a meta-analysis.

Discussion: This review will help to better understand the concept of polarization in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and might inform decision making for future pandemics.

Protocol Registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42023475828.

References

Dolman A, Fraser T, Panagopoulos C, Aldrich D, Kim D . Opposing views: associations of political polarization, political party affiliation, and social trust with COVID-19 vaccination intent and receipt. J Public Health (Oxf). 2022; 45(1):36-39. PMC: 9383304. DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab401. View

Allcott H, Boxell L, Conway J, Gentzkow M, Thaler M, Yang D . Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. J Public Econ. 2020; 191:104254. PMC: 7409721. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254. View

Fraser T, Aldrich D, Panagopoulos C, Hummel D, Kim D . The harmful effects of partisan polarization on health. PNAS Nexus. 2023; 1(1):pgac011. PMC: 9802430. DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac011. View

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 350:g7647. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7647. View

Gadarian S, Goodman S, Pepinsky T . Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2021; 16(4):e0249596. PMC: 8026027. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249596. View

Albrecht D . Vaccination, politics and COVID-19 impacts. BMC Public Health. 2022; 22(1):96. PMC: 8758893. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-12432-x. View

Curtis C, Stillman J, Remmel M, Pierce J, Lovrich Jr N, Adams-Curtis L . Partisan polarization, historical heritage, and public health: Exploring COVID-19 outcomes. World Med Health Policy. 2022; . PMC: 9537783. DOI: 10.1002/wmh3.543. View

Dekkers O, Vandenbroucke J, Cevallos M, Renehan A, Altman D, Egger M . COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology. PLoS Med. 2019; 16(2):e1002742. PMC: 6383865. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742. View

Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, Mayhew A, Skidmore B, Stevens A . Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1):131. PMC: 5516390. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2. View

10.

Hearne B, Nino M . Understanding How Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Shape Mask-Wearing Adherence During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from the COVID Impact Survey. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2021; 9(1):176-183. PMC: 7814861. DOI: 10.1007/s40615-020-00941-1. View

11.

Riley R, Higgins J, Deeks J . Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ. 2011; 342:d549. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d549. View

12.

Nayak S, Fraser T, Panagopoulos C, Aldrich D, Kim D . Is divisive politics making Americans sick? Associations of perceived partisan polarization with physical and mental health outcomes among adults in the United States. Soc Sci Med. 2021; 284:113976. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113976. View

13.

Gollwitzer A, Martel C, Brady W, Parnamets P, Freedman I, Knowles E . Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Hum Behav. 2020; 4(11):1186-1197. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-00977-7. View

14.

Krupenkin M . Does Partisanship Affect Compliance with Government Recommendations?. Polit Behav. 2020; 43(1):451-472. PMC: 7224154. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-020-09613-6. View

15.

Unruh L, Dharmapuri S, Xia Y, Soyemi K . Health disparities and COVID-19: A retrospective study examining individual and community factors causing disproportionate COVID-19 outcomes in Cook County, Illinois. PLoS One. 2022; 17(5):e0268317. PMC: 9109922. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268317. View

16.

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021; 10(1):89. PMC: 8008539. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4. View

17.

Block Jr R, Burnham M, Kahn K, Peng R, Seeman J, Seto C . Perceived risk, political polarization, and the willingness to follow COVID-19 mitigation guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2022; 305:115091. PMC: 9161674. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115091. View

18.

Campbell M, McKenzie J, Sowden A, Katikireddi S, Brennan S, Ellis S . Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020; 368:l6890. PMC: 7190266. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6890. View

19.

Kerr J, Panagopoulos C, van der Linden S . Political polarization on COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States. Pers Individ Dif. 2021; 179:110892. PMC: 8631569. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.110892. View