See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
JI YOUN YOO
University of South Florida
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-0815
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: In late January a worldwide crisis known as COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the WHO. Within only a few weeks, the outbreak took on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries. It was a significant issue to prevent and control COVID-19 on both national and global scales due to the dramatic increase in confirmed cases worldwide. Government guidelines provide a fundamental resource for communities, as they guide citizens on how to protect themselves against COVID-19, however, they also provide critical guidance for policy makers and healthcare professionals on how to take action to decrease the spread of COVID-19.
Objective: We aimed to identify the differences and similarities between six different countries' (US, China, South Korea, UK, Brazil and Haiti) government provided community and healthcare system guidelines, and to explore the relationship between guideline issue dates and the prevalence/incidence of COVID-19 cases.
Research design and Methods: To make these comparisons, this exploratory qualitative study used document analysis of government guidelines issued to the general public and to healthcare professionals. Documents were purposively sampled (N=55) and analyzed using content analysis.
Results: The major differences in the evaluation and testing criteria in the guidelines across the six countries centered around the priority of testing for COVID-19 in the general population, which was strongly dependent on each country’s healthcare capacity. However, the most similar guidelines pertained to the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and methods to prevent its contraction.
Conclusion: In the initial stages of the outbreak, certain strategies were universally employed to control the deadly virus’s spread, including quarantining the sick, contact tracing, and social distancing. However, each country dealt with differing healthcare capacities, risks, threats, political and socioeconomic challenges, and distinct healthcare systems and infrastructure. Acknowledging these differences highlights the importance of examining the various countries’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic with a nuanced view, as each of these factors shaped the government guidelines distributed to each country’s communities and healthcare systems.
Keywords
COVID-19, Coronavirus, Government guidelines, Outbreak COVID-19, Pandemic
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 20 Nov, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 17 Nov, 2020
Version 2
Posted 16 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 12 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Review #3 received
Received 25 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 06 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 17 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 19 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 09 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 05 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 22 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 21 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 21 May, 2020
First submitted
On 20 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
JI YOUN YOO
University of South Florida
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-0815
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 20 Nov, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 17 Nov, 2020
Version 2
Posted 16 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 12 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Review #3 received
Received 25 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 06 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 17 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 19 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 09 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 05 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 22 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 21 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 21 May, 2020
First submitted
On 20 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Background: In late January a worldwide crisis known as COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the WHO. Within only a few weeks, the outbreak took on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries. It was a significant issue to prevent and control COVID-19 on both national and global scales due to the dramatic increase in confirmed cases worldwide. Government guidelines provide a fundamental resource for communities, as they guide citizens on how to protect themselves against COVID-19, however, they also provide critical guidance for policy makers and healthcare professionals on how to take action to decrease the spread of COVID-19.
Objective: We aimed to identify the differences and similarities between six different countries' (US, China, South Korea, UK, Brazil and Haiti) government provided community and healthcare system guidelines, and to explore the relationship between guideline issue dates and the prevalence/incidence of COVID-19 cases.
Research design and Methods: To make these comparisons, this exploratory qualitative study used document analysis of government guidelines issued to the general public and to healthcare professionals. Documents were purposively sampled (N=55) and analyzed using content analysis.
Results: The major differences in the evaluation and testing criteria in the guidelines across the six countries centered around the priority of testing for COVID-19 in the general population, which was strongly dependent on each country’s healthcare capacity. However, the most similar guidelines pertained to the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and methods to prevent its contraction.
Conclusion: In the initial stages of the outbreak, certain strategies were universally employed to control the deadly virus’s spread, including quarantining the sick, contact tracing, and social distancing. However, each country dealt with differing healthcare capacities, risks, threats, political and socioeconomic challenges, and distinct healthcare systems and infrastructure. Acknowledging these differences highlights the importance of examining the various countries’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic with a nuanced view, as each of these factors shaped the government guidelines distributed to each country’s communities and healthcare systems.
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...