Acute psychosocial responses to Covid-19 in Turkey: A content analysis

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the acute psychosocial responses of society to COVID-19 in Turkey. Method: This qualitative study was conducted in 11 March-11 April 2020 between in the website archives of five newspapers with high circulation in Turkey, 179 news containing the psychosocial responses to COVID-19 were analyzed by content analysis. Keywords used when scanning news content on websites are Turkey, COVID-19, coronavirus, pandemic, health, disease, quarantine, prevention, protection, intervention, response, and compliance. Results: Themes were emotional responses, functional and dysfunctional coping styles to the epidemic. Each theme also has sub-themes. Emotional responses were fear, anxiety and panic. Some cared about their own health not caring about the others. Suicide cases were that they were extremely afraid of the epidemic or because of the restrictions caused by the epidemic measures. Some in quarantine behaved in attempts to infect COVID-19. Violent behaviors were observed after warnings to obey the precautionary rules against the epidemic and as a reaction to stigmatic behavior directed at them by vulnerable groups. And those who exhibit excessive protectionist behavior have carried out their own isolation. The functional psychosocial coping styles for the epidemic were that migration from the city to the village, applying to complementary medicine practices, reporting to the police those who do not comply with quarantine rules, creating psychological support services, applying spiritual practices, and tendings to solidarity for those who are active in the control, treatment and care of the epidemic. Conclusion: The acute period of the pandemic, many individuals experienced fear, anxiety and panic and resorted to functional and dysfunctional coping styles. For this reason, in pandemics identification of society's psychosocial responses of the society and how to protect mental health have become important issues.

Keywords

• COVID-19
• Pandemic
• Psychosocial responses
• Newspaper news
• Content analysis

Türkiye’de Covid-19’a yönelik ilk psikososyal tepkiler: Bir içerik analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Türkiye’de ilk bir aylık süreçte toplumun COVID-19’a yönelik akut psikososyal tepkilerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Nitel araştırma desenine göre, Türkiye’de tirajı yüksek beş gazetenin web site arşivlerindeki 11 Mart-11 Nisan 2020 tarihleri arasındaki COVID-19’a yönelik psikososyal tepkileri içeren 179 gazete haberi içerik analiziyle çözümlenmiştir. Web sitelerinde haber içerikleri taranırken kullanılan anahtar kelimeler Türkiye, COVID-19, koronavirüs, pandemi, sağlık, hastalık, karantina, önlem, koruma, müdahale, tepki ve uyum’dur. Bulgular: Araştırmada temalar; salgına karşı oluşan duygusal tepkiler, işlevsel ve işlevsel olmayan baş etme biçimleri olarak sıralanmaktadır. Her bir temanın alt temaları da bulunmaktadır. Salgının akut döneminde toplumda oluşan duygular korku, tedirginlik ve paniktir. Salgına yönelik işlevsel olmayan psikososyal baş etme şekilleri olarak kendi sağlıklarını umursarken başkalarının sağlıklarını umursamama, salgından aşırı korktukları için veya salgın önlemleri sonucunda oluşan kısıtlamalar nedeniyle intihar olguları saptanmıştır. Karantinadakilerin izolasyonlarından kaynaklı öfkelerinin şiddete dönüşmesiyle diğerlerinin hastalığa yakalanması şeklinde isteklerinin olduğu ve COVID-19’u bulaştırmaya yönelik davranışlar sergiledikleri anlaşılmıştır. Salgına yönelik alınan önlem kurallarına uyulması yönündeki ikazlar sonrasında ve örselenebilir grupların kendilerine yönelik stigmatik davranışlara verdikleri bir tepki olarak şiddet davranışları gözlenmiştir. Aşırı korumacı davranışlar sergileyenlerse kendi izolasyonlarını kendileri gerçekleştirmiştir. Salgına yönelik işlevsel psikososyal baş etme şekilleri ise kentten köye göç veya tatil yörelerine gitme, tamamlayıcı tıp uygulamalarına başvurma, karantina kurallarına uymayanları polise ihbar etme, psikolojik destek hizmetleri oluşturma, spiritüel uygulamalara başvurma, salgının kontrol, tedavi ve bakımında etkin çalışanlar için dayanışma ve paylaşma eğilimi gösterme olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Sonuç: Pandeminin akut döneminde çok sayıda birey korku, tedirginlik ve panik yaşamış bu duygularla işlevsel ve işlevsel olmayan baş etme şekillerine başvurmuştur. Bu nedenle pandemilerde toplumun psikososyal tepkilerinin tanımlanması ve ruh sağlığının korunması ve iyileştirilmesi önemli konular haline gelmiştir.

Keywords

• Covid-19
• Pandemi
• Psikososyal tepkiler
• Gazete haberleri
• İçerik analizi

References

1. 1. Loveday H. Fear, explanation and action – the psychosocial response to emerging infections. Journal of Infection Prevention 2020; 21(2):44-46.
2. 2. World Health Organization. Mental Health and Psychosocial Considerations during the COVID-19 Outbreak 2020. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/mental-health-considerations.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 02/04/2020.
3. 3. Sağlık Bakanlığı. Pandemi 2020. https://covid19.saglik.gov.tr/TR-66494/pandemi.html Erişim Tarihi: 20/12/2020.
4. 4. Bavel JJV, Baicker K, Boggio PS. et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav 2020; 4(5):460-471.
5. 5. Zu J, Ji P, Pang J, Zhong Z, Li H, He C, Zhang J, Zhao C. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19: A meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Virology 2020; 92(10):1902-1914.
6. 6. Yao H, Chen JC, Xu YF. Patients with mental health disorders in the COVID-19 epidemic. The Lancet Psychiatry 2020; 7:e21. doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30090-0.
7. 7. Torales J, O’Higgins M, Castaldelli-Maia JM, Ventriglio A. The outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 2020; 66(4):317-320.
8. 8. Wang C, Pan R, Wan X, Tan Y, Xu L, Ho C.S et al. Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. Int. J. Environ. Res Public Health 2020; 17(5):1729.

9. 9. Li S, Wang Y, Xue J, ZhaoN, Zhu T. The impact of COVID-19 epidemic declaration on psychological consequences: A study on active weibo users. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020; 17(6):2032.
10. 10. Qiu J, Shen B, Zhao M, Wang Z, Xie B, Xu, Y. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. General Psychiatry 2020; 33(2):e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213.
11. 11. Armitage R, Nellums LB. COVID-19 and the consequences of isolating the elderly. The Lancet Public Health 2020; 5(5): E256 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30061-X.
12. 12. Li J, Xu Q, Cuomo R, Purushothaman V, Mackey T. Data mining and content analysis of the chinese social media platform weibo during the early COVID-19 outbreak: Retrospective observational infoveillance study. JMIR Public Health And Surveillance 2020; 6(2):e18700. doi: 10.2196/18700.
13. 13. Depoux A, Martin S, Karafillakis E, Preet R, Wilder-Smith A, Larson H. The pandemic of social media panic travels faster than the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Travel Medicine 2020; 27(3):taaa031.
14. 14. Wang Y, McKee M, Torbica A, Stuckler D. Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc Sci Med 2019; 240:112552.
15. 15. Liu Q, Zheng Z, Zheng J, Chen Q, Liu G, Chen S et al. Health communication through news media during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in China: Digital topic modeling approach. Journal Of Medical Internet Research 2020; 22(4):e19118.
16. 16. Ho CS, Chee CY, Ho RC. Mental health strategies to combat the psychological ımpact of COVID-19 beyond paranoia and panic. Ann Acad Med Singap 2020; 16;49(3):155-160.
17. 17. Qian M, Wu Q, Wu P, Hou Z, Liang Y, Cowling BJ et al. Psychological responses, behavioral changes and public perceptions during the early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in China: A population based cross-sectional survey. MedRxiv 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.02.18.20024448 (in press).
18. 18. Zhang SX, Wang Y, Rauch A, Wei F. Health, distress and life satisfaction of people in China one month into the COVID-19 outbreak. Psychiatry Research. 2020; 288:112958. Doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112958.
19. 19. Jin Z, Zhao K, Xia Y, Chen X, Yu H, Tamunang T et al. Psychological responses to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. ChinaXiv. 2020; 14:1-16. doi10.12074/202003.00005 (in press).
20. 20. Liu N, Zhang F, Wei C, Jia Y, Shang Z, Sun L et al. Prevalence and predictors of PTSS during COVID-19 outbreak in China hardest-hit areas: Gender differences matter. Psychiatry Research 2020; 287:112921.
21. 21. Li JB, Yang A, Dou K, Wang LX, Zhang MC, Lin XQ. Chinese public’s knowledge, perceived severity, and perceived controllability of COVID-19 and their associations with emotional and behavioural reactions, social participation, and precautionary behaviour: A national survey. BMC Public Health 2020; 20(1):1589. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09695-1
22. 22. Li JB, Yang A, Dou K, Cheung RYM. Self-control moderates the association between perceived severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and mental health problems among the Chinese public. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020; 17(13):4820. doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112921.
23. 23. Park SC, Park YC. Mental health care measures in response to the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Korea. Psychiatry Investigation 2020; 17(2):85–86. doi: 10.30773/pi.2020.0058.
24. 24. Vinnakota D, Parsa AD, Arafat SY, Sivasubramanian M, & Kabir,R. COVID-19 and risk factors of suicidal behavior in UK: A content analysis of online newspaper. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports 2021; 4:100142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2021.100142
25. 25. Zafri NM, Afroj S, Nafi IM, & Hasan MMU. A content analysis of newspaper coverage of COVID-19 pandemic for developing a pandemic management framework. Heliyon 2021; 7(3): e06544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06544
26. 26. Kar SK, Menon V, Arafat SY, Rai S, Kaliamoorthy C, Akter H, ... & Sridhar VK. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic related lockdown on Suicide: analysis of newspaper reports during pre-lockdown and lockdown period in Bangladesh and India. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 2021; 60:102649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2021.102649
27. 27. Martikainen J, & Sakki I. How newspaper images position different groups of people in relation to the COVID‐19 pandemic: A social representations approach. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2021; 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2515
28. 28. Amann J, Sleigh J, & Vayena E. Digital contact-tracing during the Covid-19 pandemic: an analysis of newspaper coverage in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Plos one (2021; 16(2):e0246524. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246524
29. 29. Gazete Tirajları. Günlük Gazetelerin Tirajları. http://gazetetirajlari.com Erişim Tarihi: 02/04/2020.
30. 30. Mayring P. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt 2014. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173. Erişim Tarihi: 02/04/2020.
31. 31. Kyngäs H. Inductive content analysis. In: Kyngäs H, Mikkonen K, Kääriäinen M editors. The Application of Content Analysis in Nursing Science Research. Switzerland: Springer; 2020. p. 13-25.
32. 32. Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (2013).
33. 33. Balcı A. Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık(2011).
34. 34. Yıldırım A ve Şimşek H. Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (Genişletilmiş 7. Baskı). (2008). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
35. 35. Huang Y, Zhao N. Generalized anxiety disorder, depressive symptoms and sleep quality during COVID-19 outbreak in China: A web-based cross-sectional survey. Psychiatry Research 2020; 288:112954 (in press).
36. 36. Sun L, Sun Z, Wu L, Zhu Z, Zhang F, Shang Z et al. Prevalence and risk factors of acute posttraumatic stress symptoms during the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. MedRxiv 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.06.20032425 (in press).
37. 37. Xiang YT, Yang Y, Li W, Zhang L, Zhang Q, Cheung T et al. Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel Coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed. Lancet Psychiatry 2020; 7:228–229.
38. 38. Zhang J, Wu W, Zhao Z, Zhang W. Recommended psychological crisis intervention response to the 2019 novel Coronavirus pneumonia outbreak in China: A model of West China hospital. Precis. Clinical Med 2020; doi: 10.1093/pcmedi/pbaa006. pbaa006 (in press).
39. 39. Bao Y, Sun Y, Meng S, Shi J, Lu L. 2019-nCoV epidemic: address mental health care to empower society. The Lancet 2020; 395:37–38.
40. 40. Levin J. Mental health care for survivors and healthcare workers in the aftermath of an outbreak. In: Huremović D editör. Psychiatry of Pandemics a Mental Health Response to Infection Outbreak. Switzerland: Springer Nature AG, 2019. p. 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15346-5_11.
41. 41. Duan L, Zhu G. Psychological interventions for people affected by the COVID-19 epidemic. The Lancet Psychiatry 2020; 7(4):300-302.
42. 42. Coughlin SS. Anxiety and depression: linkages with viral diseases. Public Health Reviews 2012; 34(2):7.
43. 43. Larson HJ. The biggest pandemic risk? Viral misinformation. Nature 2018; 562(7726):309–310.
44. 44. Zhou X. Psychological crisis interventions in Sichuan Province during the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak. Psychiatry Research 2020; 286:112895.
45. 45. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. Salgın Hastalık Dönemlerinde Psikolojik Sağlamlığımızı Korumak Yetişkinler İçin Bilgilendirme Rehberi 2020. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_03/21161617_brosur_yetiskin_son.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 20/12/2020.
46. 46. Na K, Garrett RK, Slater MD. Rumor acceptance during public health crises: Testing the emotional congruence hypothesis. Journal of Health Communication 2018; 23(8):791–799.
47. 47. Goyal K, Chauhan P, Chhikara K, Gupta P, Singh MP. Fear of COVID 2019: First suicidal case in India! Asian Journal of Psychiatry 2020; 49:101989.
48. 48. World Health Organization. Traditional, Complementary and İntegrative Medicine https://www.who.int/traditional-complementary-integrative-edicine/about/en/ Erişim tarihi: 12/10/2020.
49. 49. World Health Organization. Statement on the Second Meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee Regarding the Outbreak of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov) Erişim tarihi: 30/01/2020.
50. 50. Guilaran J, Terte ID, Kaniasty K, Stephens C. Psychological outcomes in disaster responders: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of social support. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 2018; 9:68–82.
51. 51. Kazancıoğlu, H. Sosyal Hizmet ve Maneviyat (Kitap Tanıtımı). İnönü University International Journal of Social Sciences (INIJOSS) 2019; 8(1):329-331.
52. 52. Ferrara E, Yang Z. Measuring emotional contagion in social media. PloS One 2015; 10(11):e0142390.
53. 53. Müller N. Infectious diseases and mental health. In: Sartorius N, Holt RIG, Maj M, editors. Key Issues in Mental Health. Basel: S. Karger Ag. 2014. p. 99–113.