Responding to COVID-19: an exploration of EU country responses and directions for further research

• Autores: Rees, Gareth H., Batenburg, Ronald, Scotter, Cris
• Formato: artículo
• Fecha de Publicación: 2024
• Institución: Universidad ESAN
• Repositorio: ESAN-Institucional
• Lenguaje: inglés
• OAI Identifier: oai:repositorio.esan.edu.pe:20.500.12640/4455
• Enlace del recurso: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12640/4455; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11671-z
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: COVID-19; Europe; Country responses; Mixed methods; Europa; Respuestas por país; Métodos mixtos; https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.29

Background: During COVID-19, scientists advising policymakers were forced to deal with high uncertainty and risks in an environment of unknowns. Evidence on which policies and measures were effective in responding to the pandemic remains underdeveloped to answer the key question ‘what worked and why?’. This study aims to provide a basis for studies to go further to answer this critical question, by starting to look efficacy or how countries ensured that health services remained available and what measures were enacted to protect and treat their populations and workers. Methods: We applied a three-phase sequential mixed methods design. In phase one, we started with a qualitative content analysis of the EU Country Profile reports to retrieve and analyse data on COVID-19 responses taken by 29 countries in the European region. Phase two is the step of data transformation, converting qualitative data into numerical codes that can be statistically analysed, which are then used in a quantitative cross-national comparative analysis that comprises phase three. The quantifying process resulted in a numerical indicator to measure the ‘response efficacy’ of the 29 countries, which is used in phase three’s association of the response measure with country performance indicators that were derived from European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) COVID-19 case and death rate data. Results: Through comparing the frequency of COVID-19 measures taken, we found that many countries in the European region undertook similar actions but with differing effects. The cross-national analysis revealed an expected relationship: a lower COVID-19 response efficacy appeared to be related to a higher case and death rates. Still, marked variation for countries with similar response efficacy indicators was found, signalling that the combination and sequence of implementation of COVID-19 responses is possibly just as important as their efficacy in terms of which response measures were implemented. Conclusions: Many European countries employed similar COVID-19 measures but still had a wide variation in their case and death rates. To unravel the question ‘what worked and why?’, we suggest directions from which more refined research can be designed that will eventually contribute to mitigate the impact of future pandemics and to be better prepared for their economic and human burden.