The Year of Enduring COVID-19: Typology of Attitudes Displayed by Health Care Professionals in Ukraine
Keywords:COVID-19 pandemic, qualitative research methods, threat perception, vaccination, preventive health behaviour, conspiracy theories, health care professionals, public health
Aim. Identification and construction of the typology of attitudes of health care professionals in Ukraine to the current COVID-19 situation and vaccination process.
Methods. Transcripts of 49 semi-structured interviews subjected to thematic analysis constituted the subject matter of the analysis. On the basis of the categories identified within the thematic analysis process, a typology was developed, with due account of two parameters: the idea about the origin of the virus: artificial or natural, and the attitude of the informants to the policy (implementation of policy decisions) chosen by the authorities to fight the virus. Combination of these two parameters gives four standpoints—types of attitude of health care professionals to the risks associated with COVID-19.
Results and conclusion. Analysis of the results has enabled to outline the problem field for assessing the risk of COVID-19, which includes three topics, as well as to point out four typical standpoints in the attitude displayed by health care professionals that are marked as “magical thinking,” “technological thinking,” “negativistic thinking,” “critical thinking.”
Originality. The research was conducted during the third wave of coronavirus in Ukraine, therefore, it reflects the analysed opinions of health care professionals about the threat of COVID-19 and vaccination process. The fact that the research was performed using qualitative methods ensured focusing on subjective peculiarities of the perception of changes in the COVID-19 situation.
Borkan, J. (1999). Immersion/Crystallization. In: B.F. Crabtree & W.L. Miller (Eds.) Doing Qualitative Research (pp. 179-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2014). What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 9, Article 26152. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.26152.
Chen, X., Zhang, S. X., Jahanshahi, A. A., Alvarez-Risco, A., Dai, H., Li, J., & Ibarra, V. G. (2020). Belief in a COVID-19 conspiracy theory as a predictor of mental health and well-being of health care workers in Ecuador: Cross-sectional survey study. JMIR public health and surveillance, 6(3), Article e20737. doi: 10.2196/20737.
Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538-542. doi: l0.1177 /0963721417718261.
Douglas, K. (2021). Are Conspiracy Theories Harmless? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 24, Article E13. doi:10.1017/SJP.2021.10
Duplaga, M. (2020). The Determinants of conspiracy beliefs related to the COVID-19 pandemic in a nationally representative sample of internet users. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), Article 7818. doi:10.3390/ijerph17217818.
Freeman, D., Waite, F., Rosebrock, L., Petit, A., Causier, C., East, A., Jenner, L., Teale, A. L., Carr, L., Mulhall, S., Bold, E., & Lambe, S. (2020). Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England. Psychological Medicine, 1–13. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720001890.
Haletska, I., Klymanska, L., & Klimanska, M. (2020). Quarantine April in Ukraine: thoughts, experiences, behaviour faced with the threat of COVID-19. Psychological Journal, 6(5), 18-36. doi: 10.31108/1.2020.6.5.2.
Haletska, I., Klimanska, M., & Perun, M. (2020). COVID-19, lockdown and family life in a new reality. Psychological Journal, 6(9), 40-57. doi: 10.31108/1.2020.6.9.4.
Klimanska, M., Klymanska, L., & Haletska, I. (2020). The lens, frames and patterns of Ukrainians: how perception of threat and risk determines behavior in the COVID-19 situation. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 11(2), 444–460. doi: 10.15503/jecs2020.2.444.460.
Nohl, A., Afflerbach, C., Lurz, C., Brune, B., Ohmann, T., Weichert, V., Zeiger, S., & Dudda, M. (2021). Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination among front-line health care workers: a nationwide survey of emergency medical services personnel from Germany. Vaccines, 9(5), Article 424. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9050424.
Olatunji, O. S., Ayandele, O., Ashirudeen, D., & Olaniru, O. S. (2020). “Infodemic” in a pandemic: COVID-19 conspiracy theories in an African country. Social Health and Behavior, 3(4), 152-157. doi: 10.4103/SHB.SHB_43_20.
Oleksy, T., Wnuk, A., Maison, D., & Łyś, A. (2021). Content matters. Different predictors and social consequences of general and government-related conspiracy theories on COVID-19. Personality and individual differences, 168, Article 110289. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110289.
Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2020). Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. Social Science & Medicine, 263, Article 113356. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356.
Šrol, J., Cavojova, V., & Mikušková, E. B. (2021). Social consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: Evidence from two studies in Slovakia. PsyArXiv. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/y4svc.
Stein, R. A., Ometa, O., Pachtman Shetty, S., Katz, A., Popitiu, M. I., & Brotherton, R. (2021). Conspiracy theories in the era of COVID-19: A tale of two pandemics. International journal of clinical practice, 75(2), Article e13778. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13778.
Verger, P., Scronias, D., Dauby, N., Adedzi, K. A., Gobert, C., Bergeat, M., Gagneur, A., & Dubé, E. (2021). Attitudes of healthcare workers towards COVID-19 vaccination: a survey in France and French-speaking parts of Belgium and Canada, 2020. Euro surveillance: bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 26(3), Article 2002047. doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.3.2002047.
Weigmann, K. (2018). The genesis of a conspiracy theory: Why do people believe in scientific conspiracy theories and how do they spread? EMBO reports, 19(4), Article e45935. doi: 10.15252/embr.201845935.
Wood, M. J. (2018). Propagating and Debunking Conspiracy Theories on Twitter During the 2015-2016 Zika Virus Outbreak. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 21(8), 485–490. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2017.0669.
World Health Organisation. (2020). Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Situation Report-13. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200202-sitrep-13-ncov-v3.pdf.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Maryna Klimanska, Larysa Klymanska, Inna Haletska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. All authors agree for publishing their email adresses, affiliations and short bio statements with their articles during the submission process.