Cited by 26COVID-19 and Mental HealthCOVID-19 Prevention and ImpactCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

Effects of the COVID‐19 Emergency and National Lockdown on Italian Citizens’ Economic Concerns, Government Trust, and Health Engagement: Evidence From a Two‐Wave Panel Study

Open access
GRAFFIGNA, GUENDALINA, PALAMENGHI, LORENZO, SAVARESE, MARIAROSARIA, CASTELLINI, GRETA, BARELLO, SERENA·2021·The Milbank Quarterly

Abstract

Policy Points: Preventive measures such as the national lockdown in Italy have been effective in slowing the spread of COVID‐19. However, they also had psychological and economic impacts on people’s lives, which should not be neglected as they may reduce citizens’ trust and compliance with future health mandates. Engaging citizens in their own health management and in the collaboration with health care professionals and authorities via the adoption of a collaborative approach to health policy development is fundamental to fostering such measures’ effectiveness. Psychosocial analysis of citizens’ concerns and emotional reactions to preventive policies is important in order to plan personalized health communication campaigns. Context: Because of the COVID‐19 pandemic, between February 23 and March 8, 2020, some areas of Italy were declared “red zones,” with citizens asked to stay home and avoid unnecessary interpersonal contacts. Such measures were then extended, between March 10 and May 4, 2020, to the whole country. However, compliance with such behaviors had an important impact on citizens’ personal, psychological, and economic well‐being. This could result in reduced trust in authorities and lowered compliance. Keeping citizens engaged in their own health and in preventive behaviors is thus a key strategy for the success of such measures. This paper presents the results from a study conducted in Italy to monitor levels of people’s health engagement, sentiment, trust in authorities, and perception of risk at two different time points. Methods: Two independent samples (n = 968 and n = 1,004), weighted to be representative of the adult Italian population, were recruited in two waves corresponding to crucial moments of the Italian COVID‐19 epidemic: between February 28 and March 4 (beginning of “phase 1,” after the first regional lockdowns), and between May 12 and May 18 (beginning of “phase 2,” after the national lockdown was partially dismissed). Respondents were asked to complete an online survey with a series of both validated measures and ad hoc items. A series of t‐tests, general linear models, and contingency tables were carried out to assess if and how our measures changed over time in different social groups. Findings: Although sense of self and social responsibility increased between the two waves, and trust toward authorities remained substantially the same, trust in science, consumer sentiment, and health engagement decreased. Our results showed that while both the level of general concern for the emergency and the perceived risk of infection increased between the two waves, in the second wave our participants reported being more concerned for the economic consequences of the pandemic than the health risk. Conclusions: The potentially disruptive psychological impact of lockdown may hamper citizens’ compliance with, and hence the effectiveness of, behavioral preventive measures. This suggests that preventive measures should be accompanied by collaborative educational plans aimed at promoting people’s health engagement by making citizens feel they are partners in the health preventive endeavor and involved in the development of health policies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1468-0009.12506

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [34]Nacoti M, Ciocca A, Giupponi A, et al. At the epicenter of the Covid‐19 pandemic and humanitarian crises in Italy: changing perspectives on preparation and mitigation. NEJM Catalyst. March 21, 2020. https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.20.0080. Accessed January 25, 2021. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
GRAFFIGNA, G., PALAMENGHI, L., SAVARESE, M., CASTELLINI, G., & BARELLO, S.
Affiliations
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
Corresponding author
PALAMENGHI, LORENZO
Venue
The Milbank Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-06
Volume
99
Issue
2
Pages
369-392
ISSN
  • 0887-378X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0009
OpenAlex
W3146651439
Cited by
26
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Milbank Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Fondazione Cariplo (2018/2757)
  • Regione Lombardia (2018/2757)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, national lockdown, public trust in government, health engagement, economic problems, risk perception, public trust in science, consumer confidence, preventive behavior, health communication, Italian citizens, public trust in authorities, health policy evaluation
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Policy, Humans, Italy, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Quarantine, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Assessment, Young Adult, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review