Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38166737›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Solidarity and reciprocity during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal qualitative interview study from Germany.

Franziska B Schönweitz, Bettina M Zimmermann, Nora Hangel, Amelia Fiske, Stuart McLennan, Anna Sierawska, Alena Buyx

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Franziska B Schönweitz *Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Bettina M Zimmermann *Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. bettina.zimmermann@tum.de.
Nora HangelInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Amelia FiskeInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stuart McLennanInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Anna SierawskaInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Alena BuyxInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Technical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile solidarity practices were important in mitigating the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, their limits became evident as the pandemic progressed. Taking a longitudinal approach, this study analyses German residents' changing perceptions of solidarity practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and examines potential reasons for these changes.

methodsAdults living in Germany were interviewed in April 2020 (n = 46), October 2020 (n = 43) and October 2021 (n = 40) as part of the SolPan Research Commons, a large-scale, international, qualitative, longitudinal study uniquely situated in a major global public health crisis. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsWhile solidarity practices were prominently discussed and positively evaluated in April 2020, this initial enthusiasm waned in October 2020 and October 2021. Yet, participants still perceived solidarity as important for managing the pandemic and called for institutionalized forms of solidarity in October 2020 and October 2021. Reasons for these changing perceptions of solidarity included (i) increasing personal and societal costs to act in solidarity, (ii) COVID-19 policies hindering solidarity practices, and (iii) a perceived lack of reciprocity as participants felt that solidarity practices from the state were not matching their individual efforts.

conclusionsMaintaining solidarity contributes to maximizing public health during a pandemic. Institutionalized forms of solidarity to support those most in need contribute to perceived reciprocity among individuals, which might increase their motivation to act in solidarity. Thus, rather than calling for individual solidarity during times of crisis, authorities should consider implementing sustaining solidarity-based social support systems that go beyond immediate crisis management.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultGermanyHumansLongitudinal StudiesPandemicsQualitative ResearchEthicsReciprocitySARS-Coronavirus-2Social cohesionSolidarity

Identifiers

PMID38166737
PMCPMC10763370
OpenAlexW4390509677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.