ReviewIJID regions2023
Expectations and disappointments relative to COVID-19 passes: results from a voluntary mixed-methods study in French-speaking Belgium.
Review in IJID regions, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Belgium enacted a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pass - the 'COVID Safe Ticket' (CST) - in October 2021. This study aimed to understand the expectations and reasons given by those supporting this policy measure. Methods: This mixed methods study was based on a voluntary online survey among 9444 French-speaking residents in Belgium. Results: Most respondents were not very supportive of the CST, with only 617 respondents (7%) being pro-CST. Compared with other respondents, the pro-CST sample comprised more males, older people, people scared of COVID-19, people who had confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines, and highly educated people. A qualitative analysis was undertaken to identify the reasons why respondents supported the CST. Two lines of argument were related to personal comfort (individual protection and means of 'recovering freedom'), and two other lines were related to collective protection (controlling the pandemic and incentivizing vaccination). Pro-CST respondents also indicated some limitations of the CST. Conclusions: The expectations regarding the CST were high, diverse and not entirely rational. Some contradictions and frustration emerged from the respondents' comments. The CST may have exacerbated the social divide in society. The high expectations risk leading to comparably high levels of disappointment, resulting in potential distrust towards future public health interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.