Search

The pandemic dramatically accelerated research on vaccine attitudes and uptake, a field which mobilizes researchers from the social sciences and humanities as well as biomedical and public health disciplines. The field has the potential to contribute much more, but the growth in research and the deeper connections between disciplines brings challenges as well as opportunities. This perspective article assesses the recent development of the field, exploring progress whilst emphasizing that not enough attention has been paid to national and local contexts. This lack of contextual attention limits the progress of research and hinders our capacity to learn from the COVID-19 crisis. We suggest three concrete responses: building and recognizing new publishing formats for reporting and synthesizing studies at a country level; establishing country-level interdisciplinary networks to connect research and praxis; and strengthening international comparative survey work by enhancing the focus on local contextual factors.

Background: Before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic, doctor shortages led many countries to expand nurses' role in their mass vaccination programs. Nonetheless, nurses often express marked vaccine hesitancy. Simultaneously, their working conditions have been deteriorating., Objectives: To study 1) the association between nurses' perceptions of their working conditions and their vaccination-related behaviors (vaccination recommendations to their patients), and 2) the mediating role in this associations of their trust in health authorities, vaccine confidence, and vaccine proactive efficacy., Design: A cross-sectional survey., Settings: Salaried, community (self-employed) and mixed nurses in France., Participants: 18,888 nurses registered with the French national order of nurses (ONI, registration is mandatory) (N = 439,323)., Methods: In February 2023, this cross-sectional study used an online questionnaire to survey the nurses mandatorily registered with the French national order of nurses. Seven items adapted from models of psychosocial risk factors at work assessed their satisfaction with their working conditions. The international short version of the Pro-VC-Be (health professionals, vaccine confidence and behaviors), a validated instrument measuring psychosocial determinants of health-care professionals' vaccine behaviors) evaluated their vaccine-related attitudes and behaviors. Multiple group mediation analysis with structural equation modeling measured the associations between satisfaction at work, trust in health authorities, vaccine confidence, proactive efficacy (commitment and self-efficacy) in vaccination, and vaccination recommendations (against seasonal influenza for those with a chronic disease and against COVID-19 among adults)., Results: Among the 18,888 participants, satisfaction at work had generally deteriorated, and only 47 % considered vaccines safe. Among salaried nurses (61 %), satisfaction at work was statistically significantly associated (p < 10 -3 ) with trust in health authorities (β = 0.26 [0.24; 0.28]), vaccine confidence (total effect: β = 0.35 [0.31; 0.38]), proactive efficacy (total effect: β = 0.18 [0.16; 0.21]), and, to a smaller extent, with seasonal influenza and Covid-19 vaccine recommendations (total effect: β = 0.13 [0.09; 0.16]). Trust in health authorities played a statistically significant role (p < 10 -3 ) mediating the associations of satisfaction at work with vaccine confidence and proactive efficacy. These three dimensions in turn mediated the relation between satisfaction at work and frequency of vaccination recommendations. These relations were similar among community nurses., Conclusions: Satisfaction at work appears to enhance nurses' vaccination attitudes and behaviors, which are likely to reinforce their capacity to promote their patients' vaccination. Significant improvement in their working conditions is needed to enable them to accomplish this role serenely., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Context: In 2021, French health authorities strongly promoted vaccination against COVID-19. The authors assumed that refusing this vaccine became a stigma, and they investigated potential public stigma toward unvaccinated people among the French population., Methods: A representative sample of the French adult population (N = 2,015) completed an online questionnaire in September 2021. The authors focused on participants who were already vaccinated against COVID-19 or intended to get vaccinated (N = 1,742). A cluster analysis was used to obtain contrasted attitudinal profiles, and the authors investigated associated factors with logistic regressions., Findings: Regarding attitudes toward unvaccinated people, a majority of respondents supported several pejorative statements, and a significant minority also endorsed social rejection attitudes. The authors found four contrasting attitudinal profiles: moral condemnation only (32% of respondents), full stigma (26%), no stigma (26%), and stigma rejection (16%). Early vaccination, civic motives for it, faith in science, rejection of political extremes, and being aged 65 or older were the main factors associated with stigmatizing attitudes toward unvaccinated people., Conclusions: The authors found some evidence of stigmatization toward unvaccinated people, but further research is needed, especially to investigate perceived stigmatization among them. The authors discuss their results with reference to the concept of "folk devils" and from a public health perspective., (Copyright © 2024 by Duke University Press.)

Objectives: To our best knowledge, no study in France has comprehensively investigated the prehospital history of patients admitted for severe cases of COVID-19. 'Patients' voice is an excellent means to capture data on primary care pathways.We aimed to identify clusters of COVID-19 hospitalised patients with similar prehospital symptom sequences, and to test whether these clusters were associated with a higher risk of poor clinical outcomes., Design: Cross-sectional online survey using life-event calendars., Setting: All patients hospitalised for COVID-19 between September 2020 and May 2021 in the Infectious Disease Departments in Nice and in Marseilles in France., Participants: 312 patients responded to the survey., Main Outcome Measures: From the day of symptom onset to the day of hospitalisation, we defined a symptom sequence as the time-ordered vector of the successive symptom grades (grade 1, grade 2, grade 3). State sequence analysis with optimal matching was used to identify clusters of patients with similar symptom sequences. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed to test whether these clusters were associated with admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and COVID-19 sequelae after hospitalisation., Results: Three clusters of symptom sequences were identified among 312 complete prehospital pathways. A specific group of patients (29%) experienced extended symptoms of severe COVID-19, persisting for an average duration of 7.5 days before hospitalisation. This group had a significantly higher probability of being admitted to ICU (adjusted OR 2.01). They were less likely to know a loved one who was a healthcare worker, and more likely to have a lower level of education. Similarly, this group of patients, who were more likely to have previously visited the emergency room without exhibiting severe symptoms at that time, may have been inclined to postpone reassessment when their health worsened.Their relatives played a decisive role in their hospitalisation., Conclusion and Relevance: This study highlights the negative impact of delayed hospitalisation on the health outcomes of French patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms during the first wave and underscores the influence of socioeconomic factors, such as lower education levels and limited connections to the medical field, on patients' experiences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In view of experts' warnings about the potential negative mental health consequences of the sudden nationwide lockdowns implemented in many countries to limit the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to study the incidence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after traumatic events related to this unprecedented lockdown in the French general population., Methods: This longitudinal study among adults (aged =18) consisted of two surveys: the first during the last days of the lockdown and the second a month later. We estimated PTSD incidence with the PCL-5 and ran multiple Poisson regression models to identify factors associated with PTSD., Results: Among the 1736 participants, 30.1% reported at least one traumatic event. PTSD incidence was 17.5% (95% confidence interval CI = 15.7-19.3). It was higher in participants who reported multiple traumatic events, who had high COVID-19-related media use, who had general anxiety disorder (GAD-7) during the lockdown, and who had GAD, depression (PHQ-9), or sleep problems 1 month later. In addition, 43.1% of people with PTSD reported suicidal thoughts., Conclusions: These results should help clinicians to target people who are at high risk of developing PTSD after a pandemic-related lockdown and could benefit from preventive measures. Collaboration between the media and mental health professionals could be envisioned to inform the population about care resources. Follow-up recommendations should also be disseminated to general practitioners to facilitate PTSD screening and ensure that they are aware of the appropriate management., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: The measures put in place to contain the coronavirus epidemic in France have led to fears of a massive increase in the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs., Method: Taking advantage of an ongoing weekly Internet survey monitoring living conditions of the French population during the containment, we introduced questions on alcohol and tobacco use 1 month after the start of the first containment. Analyses were conducted with multivariate Poisson regressions., Results: Tobacco consumption remained almost unchanged. By contrast, more than a third of French people did change their weekly alcohol intake: 13% increased it, whereas 21% decreased it, indicating that the containment measures were often taken as an opportunity to reduce alcohol consumption, especially among those who drank less than 4 days per week before. Men were more likely to decrease their alcohol intake and less likely to increase it than women, probably because of a differential impact of the reduction of social activities on gendered social roles. The people most affected were smokers and those living in a dwelling in which someone had been infected, including themselves., Conclusions: The crisis tended to polarize alcohol consumption toward extremes. If the new drinking habits were to continue, the consequences could be beneficial for occasional drinkers but harmful for heavier drinkers., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Objectives: Reaching the last pockets of unvaccinated people is challenging, and has led to the consideration of mandatory vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our aim was to assess attitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in France before the announcement of-and factors associated with opposition to-this type of policy., Methods: Between the 10th and 23rd May 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among a representative sample of the French population aged 18 and over, and a specific sample of the French senior population aged over 65., Results: Among 3056 respondents, 1314 (43.0%) were in favour of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, 1281 (41.9%) were opposed to such a policy, and 461 (15.1%) were undecided. Among opponents to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for the general population, 385 (30.05%) were in favour of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs). In multivariate analysis, the age groups 18-24 and 25-34 years were significantly more opposed than the reference group (>75 years old) with respective adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 4.67 (1.73-12.61) and 3.74 (1.57-8.93). Having no intention of getting COVID-19 vaccination was strongly associated with opposition to mandatory vaccination (aOR 10.67, 95%CI 6.41-17.76). In comparison with partisans of the centre, partisans of the far left and green parties were more likely to be opposed to mandatory COVID-19 vaccine, with respective aORs (95%CI) of 1.89 (1.06-3.38) and 2.08 (1.14-3.81)., Conclusion: Attitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination are split in the French general population, and the debate might become politicized., (Copyright © 2021 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Between 1 March and 15 June, France experienced the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 29 549 deaths occurred among COVID-19 patients, 17 250 of whom died in hospital. Our hypothesis is that crude mortality rates are not sufficient to assess the impact of the epidemic on public health. The objective of this paper is to estimate the potential years of life lost (YLL) of patients who died from COVID-19., Method: We realised a retrospective analysis of the exhaustive sample of COVID-19 PCR-positive patients who died in public hospitals of Marseille during this first wave. Data on demographic characteristics, comorbidities and care pathways were collected from medical records. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to assess what would have been the probability of dying within 1 year of these patients in the absence of COVID-19 and to estimate total YLL., Results: Among the 1631 patients who were hospitalised for COVID-19, 178 patients died, at an average age of 80 years. According to CCI, 88.8% of the deceased patients had an 85% probability of dying within 1 year before COVID-19. Among the 11.2% who had a lower CCI probability, 18 out of 20 had at least one additional comorbidity known to be a major risk factor of mortality in COVID-19 disease. Cumulative total number of YLL was estimated to be 541 in this deceased population, that is, an average of 3 YLL., Conclusion: Although our results should be interpreted with caution, this analysis confirms that mortality due to COVID-19 translates into a limited number of YLL due to both old age and preexisting comorbidities in the most vulnerable patients. This fact should be better considered in public health management of the pandemic both for risk communication and design of the most appropriate protective measures., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The French health authorities extended vaccination against COVID-19 to adolescents in June 2021, during the epidemic resurgence linked to the delta variant and because of insufficient vaccination coverage to ensure collective protection. In May 2021, we conducted a national online cross-sectional survey of 2533 adults in France to study their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and their acceptance of child/adolescent vaccination according to targeted age groups (<6 years; 6-11; 12-17) and its determinants. We applied a multi-model averaged logistic regression for each of these age groups to study the determinants of favorability to vaccination. Among the respondents, 62.7% (1597) accepted COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents, 48.3% (1223) for children aged 6-11 years, and only 31% (783) for children under 6 years. Acceptance increased with fear of contracting COVID-19 and trust in institutions and decreased as the COVID-19 vaccine risk perception score increased. People favorable to vaccination in general and those sensitive to social pressure were also more often favorable to vaccinating children/adolescents than those who were not. Drivers of acceptance were ranked differently for the different age groups. Understanding these differences is essential to anticipating obstacles to vaccination of these age groups and designing appropriate information and motivational strategies to support it.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads across the world, the rapid distribution of an effective vaccine and its acceptability among the population constitute priorities for health authorities. This study aimed to document attitudes of the general population toward a future vaccine against COVID-19. We used the national COCONEL surveys conducted during the lockdown to identify factors associated with vaccine refusal, in the whole population, and separately among men and women. We investigate the role of socioeconomic and demographic factors as well as exposure to COVID-19. Among the 5,018 participants, 24.0% reported their intention to refuse the vaccine. Thinking this vaccine would not be safe, being against vaccination in general, and perceiving COVID-19 to be harmless were the three main reasons given to explain vaccine refusal. Women were more likely to refuse the vaccine, especially due to a reluctance toward vaccination in general or the perception that a COVID-19 vaccine would not be safe. Some factors associated with the intention to refuse the vaccine were the same among men and women such as a lack of prior vaccination against influenza, and concern over being infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while others differed slightly according to gender such as age, and high prevalence of COVID-19 in their region of residence. Authorities should therefore guarantee that all the necessary precautions are taken before marketing the vaccine and communicate transparently on the process of its development, and on the coverage rate required to reach herd immunity. Abbreviation : EHI: Equivalized Household Income per month; SARS-CoV-2: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Introduction: With France one of the European countries most strongly affected by COVID-19 in the spring of 2020, French authorities imposed a nationwide lockdown for 8 weeks (March 17-May 10). This study explored the perception of the adult population about the need for-and access to-psychological support from health care professionals (HCP) in response to concerns about the psychological needs during lockdown., Material and Method: This online cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of the adult general population of mainland France (N = 2,003) took place during the last four days of the French lockdown (May 7-10, 2020)., Results: One in eight respondents (12.2%) perceived a need for psychological support from an HCP during the lockdown; most had symptoms of depression and/or anxiety of at least moderate intensity. Only a third (29.8%, 3.6% of the entire sample) actually obtained this support. Factors associated with this perceived need included: age under 35, economic difficulties due to lockdown, pre-lockdown use of psychological support, infection with COVID-19, serious worries about becoming infected, and heavy media use to obtain information about the disease. Among those who perceived a need for psychological support, the elderly were the most likely not to consult an HCP. People aged 35-64, those with high income, and those seriously worried about developing COVID-19 were the most likely to forgo seeking access to care because of their fear of infection by the coronavirus-2019., Conclusion: The perceived need for psychological support from an HCP and access to it appeared to be strongly associated with COVID-19 exposure factor. More research about this association is needed to improve the health authorities' understanding of the population's psychological needs in this situation and to enhance HCPs' abilities to meet them. In particular, further research of its specific impact on youth is necessary., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted the habits of billions of people around the world. Lockdown at home is mandatory, forcing many families, each member with their own sleep-wake habits, to spend 24 hr a day together, continuously. Sleep is crucial for maintaining immune systems and contributes deeply to physical and psychological health. To assess sleep problems and use of sleeping pills, we conducted a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of the general population in France. The self-reported sleep complaint items, which covered the previous 8 days, have been used in the 2017 French Health Barometer Survey, a cross-sectional survey on various public health issues. After 2 weeks of confinement, 74% of the participants (1,005 subjects) reported trouble sleeping compared with a prevalence rate of 49% in the last general population survey. Women reported more sleeping problems than men, with greater frequency or severity: 31% vs. 16%. Unusually, young people (aged 18-34 years) reported sleep problems slightly more frequently than elderly people (79% vs. 72% among those aged 35 or older), with 60% of the younger group reporting that these problems increased with confinement (vs. 51% of their elders). Finally, 16% of participants reported they had taken sleeping pills during the last 12 months, and 41% of them reported using these drugs since the lockdown started. These results suggest that the COVID crisis is associated with severe sleep disorders among the French population, especially young people., (© 2020 European Sleep Research Society.)

Background: The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and the accompanying lockdown measures have had a major impact on societies around the world, leading to sleep problems for a large part of the population. In order to assess the sustainability of sleeping troubles related to the sanitary crisis, it was crucial to measure its prevalence after the end of the Covid-19 confinement., Methods: As part of an epidemiological survey on Covid and Confinement (COCONEL), we enquired on sleep disorders using two items in 4 repetitive cross-sectional surveys. The first took place during the first week of the French confinement (March 31 to April 2; N = 1005 participants). The second took place in the middle of this period (April 15-17; N = 1005). The two last surveys were held at the end of the confinement (May 7-10; N = 2003) and one month after the end (June 10-12; N = 1736). Using a random constant, the mixed model took into account the longitudinal character of the last two waves (intra-individual correlations for individuals surveyed in waves 3 and 4)., Results: The prevalence of sleep problems significantly decreased during the last weeks of the confinement, and this trend was confirmed one month after the end of confinement. One quarter of the population reported that their sleep was better one month after the end of the confinement. Sleep improvement was reported more often by women and people aged less than 65. Such improvement was less frequent among those who were still highly exposed to the pandemic's media coverage after the end of the confinement., Conclusion: The possibility of recovering a good sleep largely depends on the type of sleep disorder. The decrease in sleep problems occurred mainly among people with mild sleep problems during the confinement. Further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and its confinement period on sleep quality in the general population., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Because the effectiveness of a coronavirus disease lockdown in curbing coronavirus disease spread depends on public support, acquiring real-time information about the way populations reacted to the lockdown is crucial. In France, such public support remained fragile among low-income persons, probably because the lockdown exacerbated preexisting social inequalities and conflicts.

Background: In March 2020, as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19) pandemic was spreading across the globe, many countries have implemented unprecedented lockdown measures. But how populations did react to these measures? We examined the case of France. Our aims were threefold: assessing some aspects of their impact on French's daily living conditions; investigating their attitudes toward the lockdown; investigating the factors associated with these attitudes., Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was carried out 10 days after the nationwide lockdown (from March 27th to March 29th 2020), among a representative sample of the mainland French population aged 18 and over. A quota sampling method was applied to achieve a sample of 1012 respondents. We used a cluster analysis to obtain contrasted attitudinal profiles, and logistic regressions to investigated which factors were associated to these profiles., Results: After 10 days of lockdown, there were already significant consequences regarding respondents' living conditions and mental health. Most respondents supported the current lockdown. However, it appeared as a stopgap measure due to a lack of alternatives, and a large majority acknowledged its heavy drawbacks. We found three contrasted attitudinal profiles: full support (38%), strong but critical support (31%), limited support (31%). Regarding respondents' SES, low-income and low-education respondents were more likely to display critical or limited support to the lockdown, as well as those who reported deteriorated living conditions or psychological distress., Conclusions: In France, the large public support to the lockdown was fragile. First, it was a critical consensus anchored in current controversies and recent social struggles. Second, it was weaker among people with a lows SES, especially since the lockdown have exacerbated preexisting social inequalities.

As Covid-19 spreads across the world, governments turn a hopeful eye towards research and development of a vaccine against this new disease. But it is one thing to make a vaccine available, and it is quite another to convince the public to take the shot, as the precedent of the 2009 H1N1 influenza illustrated. In this paper, we present the results of four online surveys conducted in April 2020 in representative samples of the French population 18 years of age and over (N = 5018). These surveys were conducted during a period when the French population was on lockdown and the daily number of deaths attributed to the virus reached its peak. We found that if a vaccine against the new coronavirus became available, almost a quarter of respondents would not use it. We also found that attitudes to this vaccine were correlated significantly with political partisanship and engagement with the political system. Attitudes towards this future vaccine did not follow the traditional mapping of political attitudes along a Left-Right axis. The rift seems to be between people who feel close to governing parties (Centre, Left and Right) on the one hand, and, on the other, people who feel close to Far-Left and Far-Right parties as well as people who do not feel close to any party. We draw on the French sociological literature on ordinary attitudes to politics to discuss our results as well as the cultural pathways via which political beliefs can affect perceptions of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The pandemic dramatically accelerated research on vaccine attitudes and uptake, a field which mobilizes researchers from the social sciences and humanities as well as biomedical and public health disciplines. The field has the potential to contribute much more, but the growth in research and the deeper connections between disciplines brings challenges as well as opportunities. This perspective article assesses the recent development of the field, exploring progress whilst emphasizing that not enough attention has been paid to national and local contexts. This lack of contextual attention limits the progress of research and hinders our capacity to learn from the COVID-19 crisis. We suggest three concrete responses: building and recognizing new publishing formats for reporting and synthesizing studies at a country level; establishing country-level interdisciplinary networks to connect research and praxis; and strengthening international comparative survey work by enhancing the focus on local contextual factors.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads across the world, the rapid distribution of an effective vaccine and its acceptability among the population constitute priorities for health authorities. This study aimed to document attitudes of the general population toward a future vaccine against COVID-19. We used the national COCONEL surveys conducted during the lockdown to identify factors associated with vaccine refusal, in the whole population, and separately among men and women. We investigate the role of socioeconomic and demographic factors as well as exposure to COVID-19. Among the 5,018 participants, 24.0% reported their intention to refuse the vaccine. Thinking this vaccine would not be safe, being against vaccination in general, and perceiving COVID-19 to be harmless were the three main reasons given to explain vaccine refusal. Women were more likely to refuse the vaccine, especially due to a reluctance toward vaccination in general or the perception that a COVID-19 vaccine would not be safe. Some factors associated with the intention to refuse the vaccine were the same among men and women such as a lack of prior vaccination against influenza, and concern over being infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while others differed slightly according to gender such as age, and high prevalence of COVID-19 in their region of residence. Authorities should therefore guarantee that all the necessary precautions are taken before marketing the vaccine and communicate transparently on the process of its development, and on the coverage rate required to reach herd immunity. Abbreviation: EHI: Equivalized Household Income per month; SARS-CoV-2: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Abstract Background In view of experts’ warnings about the potential negative mental health consequences of the sudden nationwide lockdowns implemented in many countries to limit the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to study the incidence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after traumatic events related to this unprecedented lockdown in the French general population. Methods This longitudinal study among adults (aged =18) consisted of two surveys: the first during the last days of the lockdown and the second a month later. We estimated PTSD incidence with the PCL-5 and ran multiple Poisson regression models to identify factors associated with PTSD. Results Among the 1736 participants, 30.1% reported at least one traumatic event. PTSD incidence was 17.5% (95% confidence interval CI = 15.7–19.3). It was higher in participants who reported multiple traumatic events, who had high COVID-19-related media use, who had general anxiety disorder (GAD-7) during the lockdown, and who had GAD, depression (PHQ-9), or sleep problems 1 month later. In addition, 43.1% of people with PTSD reported suicidal thoughts. Conclusions These results should help clinicians to target people who are at high risk of developing PTSD after a pandemic-related lockdown and could benefit from preventive measures. Collaboration between the media and mental health professionals could be envisioned to inform the population about care resources. Follow-up recommendations should also be disseminated to general practitioners to facilitate PTSD screening and ensure that they are aware of the appropriate management.

Because the effectiveness of a coronavirus disease lockdown in curbing coronavirus disease spread depends on public support, acquiring real-time information about the way populations reacted to the lockdown is crucial. In France, such public support remained fragile among low-income persons, probably because the lockdown exacerbated preexisting social inequalities and conflicts.

BackgroundThe outbreak of COVID-19 has been a major interrupting event, challenging how societies and individuals deal with risk. An essential determinant of the virus’ spread is a series of individual decisions, such as wearing face masks in public space. Those decisions depend on trade-offs between costs (or benefits) and risks, and beliefs are key to explain these.MethodsWe elicit beliefs about the COVID-19 pandemic during lockdown in France by means of surveys asking French citizens about their belief of the infection fatality ratio (IFR) for COVID-19, own risk to catch the disease, risk as perceived by others, and expected prevalence rate. Those self-assessments were measured twice during lockdown: about 2 weeks after lockdown started and about 2 weeks before lockdown ended. We also measured the quality of these beliefs with respect to available evidence at the time of the surveys, allowing us to assess the calibration of beliefs based on risk-related socio-demographics. Finally, comparing own risk to expected prevalence rates in the two successive surveys provides a dynamic view of comparative optimism with respect to the disease.ResultsThe risk perceptions are rather high in absolute terms and they increased between the two surveys. We found no evidence for an impact of personal experience with COVID-19 on beliefs and lower risk perceptions of the IFR when someone in the respondent’s family has been diagnosed with a disease. Answers to survey 1 confirmed this pattern with a clear indication that respondents were optimistic about their chances to catch COVID-19. However, in survey 2, respondents revealed comparative pessimism.ConclusionThe results show that respondents overestimated the probabilities to catch or die from COVID-19, which is not unusual and does not necessarily reflect a strong deviation from rational behavior. While a rational model explains why the own risk to catch COVID-19 rose between the two surveys, it does not explain why the subjective assessment of the IFR remained stable. The comparative pessimism in survey 2 was likely due to a concomitant increase in the respondents’ perceived chances to catch the disease and a decreased expected prevalence rate.