ArticleJournal of global health2025
Political construction of risk perception and preventive behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Korea.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the complex interactions between politics and public health, as political ideologies shape risk perception and adherence to safety measures worldwide. In South Korea, the shift from a progressive to a conservative government administration during the pandemic presents a unique opportunity to examine how risk perception and compliance with preventive measures vary under different political regimes. Methods: We used secondary data from a representative South Korean polling company. Biweekly repeated cross-sectional surveys were conducted 80 times over three years (February 2020-April 2023), capturing citizens' perceptions during the regime change. We analysed time-series trends in risk perception and preventive intentions. We conducted cross-sectional analyses on surveys collected under the two administrations to explore how political affiliation influenced risk perception and behaviour. These analyses provide insights into the interaction between political alignment and individuals' risk perceptions and preventive actions. Results: Korean citizens who shared the same political views as the central government tended to trust the government's handling of the pandemic more. As a result, they perceived less risk and engaged in fewer preventive behaviours. Rather than changes in specific quarantine policy, Korea's case represents intergroup polarisation driven by political affiliation. We revealed compelling evidence of political influence on risk perception and behaviour, offering valuable insights for addressing politicised issues in future pandemics. Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that COVID-19 has become a political issue not only between two hostile political parties but also among individuals with different political preferences. Therefore, when striving for collaborative problem-solving, caution must be exercised against politicising the issues as witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. These politicised subjects may result in criticising the other party through prejudicial criticism, as well as refraining from making efforts to find common values.
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.