Experience of COVID-19 and perception of risk
25% (n = 261) of the sample indicated they had self-isolated due to the COVID-19 pandemic, while 1.3% (n = 14) of participants or another household member had contracted COVID-19. Almost half of participants were slightly concerned (46%) of the risk of their child contracting COVID-19, 32% were moderately concerned while 9% felt their child was at high risk. 50% said their child would be somewhat affected if they contracted COVID-19, while 28% said they would be quite unwell and 10% thought their child would be very unwell.
Sources of information and concerns about accessing healthcare
Participants were asked where they sought information on accessing healthcare for their child following the onset of the pandemic. The majority (88.5%) utilized either official government or Health Service Executive (HSE) sources. 18% accessed information through friends and family on social media, while 17% turned to ‘experts’ on social media.
Participants were asked to select the reasons that caused the greatest amount of concern when considering accessing healthcare for their child during COVID-19. Fear of contracting COVID-19 (67%) was the most commonly reported concern, while 30% stated that they were concerned the service would be busy at this time. 25% believed that services were needed more by others while 24% feared they would be judged for attending. 18% reported that they thought the public health advice issued by the government was to avoid health services.
Regarding the 18% who perceived that official advice administered by authorities meant health services were to be avoided (n = 183), a higher proportion of this subgroup also reported significantly higher levels of stress (χ2 (2) =13.3163, p<0.01) and were much more or somewhat more hesitant about accessing healthcare for their children in the Delay and Mitigation phase (χ2 (3) =11.4103, p<0.05). Further details on this group can be found in Additional File 2.
Hesitancy regarding access of healthcare
Participants were asked their level of hesitancy about accessing healthcare, both during the Delay and Mitigation or “lockdown” stage and Phase One of reopening stage, by selecting one of five points on a scale ranging from much more to much less. 23% stated that they were much more hesitant and 35% were somewhat more hesitant during Delay and Mitigation, however this reduced to 5% and 18% respectively during Phase One. 34% felt about the same regarding accessing healthcare during Delay and Mitigation, increasing to 47% during Phase one. 19% of participants indicated they were hesitant at both stages.
Chi-square (χ2) tests were used to establish between group differences in reported hesitancy and are reported in Table 2. Female participants were significantly more likely to report being hesitant to attend health services during the Delay and Mitigation period (χ2 (3) =19.7608, p< 0.000) and this was also significant at Phase One. Parents of children who had an underlying health condition were also more likely to report being much more hesitant and somewhat more hesitant compared to those without (χ2 (3) =10.6619, p= 0.014). This effect was not significant at Phase One. Significant associations were also found between parents who reported higher stress levels (i.e., scored severe/extremely severe on the DASS) (χ2 (6) =47.2862, p< .000.), parents with a higher perception of risk of their children contracting COVID-19 (χ2 (3) =33.8618, p< 0.000), and stronger levels of concern regarding the effect COVID-19 would have on their children (χ2 (3) =23.9189, p< 0.000). Finally, greater hesitancy was reported by those who thought that government advice was to stay away from health services (χ2 (3) =11.4103, p=0.01). Each of these effects were also significant in Phase One, as can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2
Reported Hesitancy in both Delay and Mitigation and Phase One periods
N = 1044
|
|
Delay & Mitigation Period
|
Phase One of reopening
|
|
Much more
%(n)
|
Somewhat more
%(n)
|
About the same
%(n)
|
Somewhat or much less
%(n)
|
p-value
|
Much more
%(n)
|
Somewhat more
%(n)
|
About the same
%(n)
|
Somewhat or much less
%(n)
|
p-value
|
Total
|
23.2(242)
|
35.1(366)
|
34.2(357)
|
7.6(79)
|
|
5.2(54)
|
17.6(184)
|
46.8(489)
|
30.4(317)
|
|
Female
|
71.9(174)
|
63.7(233)
|
56.3(201)
|
50.6(40)
|
p< 0.000
|
62.7(34)
|
62.5(115)
|
57.7(282)
|
68.5(217)
|
p= 0.023
|
Age of parent
|
<29
|
13.2(32)
|
10.9(40)
|
11.5(41)
|
15.2(12)
|
p= 0.916
|
22.2(12)
|
12.5(23)
|
12.5(61)
|
9.2(29)
|
|
30- 39
|
41.3(100)
|
42.1(154)
|
39.2(140)
|
45.6(36)
|
33.3(18)
|
49.5(91)
|
40.3(197)
|
39.1(124)
|
p= 0.035
|
40-49
|
36.0(87)
|
37.7(138)
|
38.7(138)
|
31.7(25)
|
35.2(19)
|
29.9(55)
|
38.7(189)
|
39.4(125)
|
|
50>
|
9.5(23)
|
9.3(34)
|
10.6(38)
|
7.6(6)
|
9.3(5)
|
8.2(15)
|
8.6(42)
|
12.3(39)
|
|
Marital Status
|
Single
|
12.8(31)
|
8.5(31)
|
11.5(41)
|
10.1(8)
|
p= 0.429
|
11.1(6)
|
11.4(21)
|
10.4(51)
|
10.4(33)
|
|
Married
|
69.4(168)
|
70.8(259)
|
65.0(232)
|
67.1(53)
|
61.1(33)
|
71.7(132)
|
67.3(329)
|
68.8(218)
|
p= 0.739
|
Cohabiting
|
12.0(29)
|
16.1(59)
|
16.5(59)
|
19.0(15)
|
18.5(10)
|
13.0(24)
|
17.0(83)
|
14.2(45)
|
|
Divorced/Separated/Widowed
|
5.8(14)
|
4.6(17)
|
7.0(25)
|
3.8(3)
|
9.3(5)
|
3.8(7)
|
5.3(26)
|
6.6(21)
|
|
No. of children
|
One child
|
39.7(96)
|
35.0(128)
|
46.5(166)
|
29.1(23)
|
p= 0.003
|
42.6(23)
|
40.8(75)
|
42.1(206)
|
34.4(109)
|
|
Two children
|
39.3(95)
|
39.3(144)
|
37.8(135)
|
40.5(32)
|
38.9(21)
|
37.5(69)
|
38.5(188)
|
40.4(128)
|
p= 0.349
|
Three or more children
|
21.1(51)
|
25.7(94)
|
15.7(56)
|
30.4(24)
|
18.5(10)
|
21.7(40)
|
19.4(95)
|
25.2(80)
|
|
Education
|
Lower Secondary
|
2.9(7)
|
2.7(10)
|
6.2(22)
|
10.1(8)
|
p= 0.080
|
1.9(1)
|
2.2(4)
|
4.7(23)
|
6.0(19)
|
|
Upper Secondary
|
15.3(37)
|
14.2(52)
|
12.3(44)
|
16.5(13)
|
13.0(7)
|
15.8(29)
|
13.5(66)
|
13.9(44)
|
p= 0.786
|
Post-Secondary certificate /vocational
|
27.7(67)
|
31.1(111)
|
16.5(13)
|
26.6(21)
|
29.6(16)
|
28.3(52)
|
28.8(141)
|
29.0(92)
|
|
Degree or Postgraduate
|
54.1(131)
|
50.4(180)
|
14.0(146)
|
46.8(37)
|
55.6(30)
|
53.8(99)
|
53.0(259)
|
51.1(162)
|
|
Health cover status
|
No cover
|
16.9(41)
|
17.8(65)
|
21.6(77)
|
12.7(10)
|
p= 0.083
|
11.1(6)
|
16.8(31)
|
18.8(92)
|
20.2(64)
|
|
Medical card only
|
26.0(63)
|
25.1(92)
|
28.6(102)
|
41.8(33)
|
24.1(13)
|
28.3(52)
|
30.3(148)
|
24.3(77)
|
p= 0.115
|
GP visit card only
|
8.7(21)
|
8.7(32)
|
6.4(23)
|
10.1(8)
|
3.7(2)
|
9.2(17)
|
8.8(43)
|
6.9(22)
|
|
Private Insurance only
|
38.0(92)
|
36.9(135)
|
35.3(126)
|
22.8(18)
|
42.6(23)
|
32.6(60)
|
32.9(161)
|
40.1(127)
|
|
Both insurance & medical card
|
10.3(25)
|
11.5(42)
|
8.1(29)
|
12.7(10)
|
18.5(10)
|
13.0(24)
|
9.2(45)
|
8.5(27)
|
|
Healthcare professional
|
9.9(24)
|
11.2(41)
|
10.1(36)
|
12.7(10)
|
p= 0.871
|
16.7(9)
|
12.5(23)
|
10.2(50)
|
9.2(29)
|
p= 0.312
|
Underlying health condition in household
|
Yes
|
53.3(129)
|
46.5(170)
|
42.0(150)
|
44.3(35)
|
p= 0.057
|
38.9(21)
|
48.9(90)
|
45.2(221)
|
48.0(152)
|
p= 0.516
|
No
|
46.7(113)
|
54.6(196)
|
58.0(207)
|
55.7(44)
|
61.1(33)
|
51.1(94)
|
54.8(268)
|
52.1(165)
|
|
Child under 16 with underlying health condition
|
Yes
|
20.7 (50)
|
17.5 (64)
|
11.5(41)
|
12.7(10)
|
p= 0.014
|
9.3(5)
|
16.9(31)
|
16.4(80)
|
15.5(49)
|
p= 0.566
|
No
|
79.3 (192)
|
82.5 (302)
|
88.5 (316)
|
87.3 (69)
|
90.7(49)
|
83.62(153)
|
83.6 (409)
|
84.5(268)
|
|
Member of household isolated
|
Yes
|
29.8(72)
|
26.8(98)
|
21.0(75)
|
20.3(16)
|
p= 0.057
|
29.6(16)
|
29.9(55)
|
23.3(114)
|
24.0(76)
|
p= 0.274
|
No
|
70.2(170)
|
73.2(268)
|
79.0(282)
|
79.8(63)
|
70.4(38)
|
70.1(129)
|
76.7(375)
|
76.0(241)
|
|
Was healthcare needed
|
Yes, accessed healthcare
|
33.1(80)
|
30.1(110)
|
19.3(69)
|
26.6(21)
|
p< 0.000
|
27.8(15)
|
32.6(60)
|
23.5(115)
|
28.4(90)
|
p= 0.003
|
Yes, but didn’t access healthcare
|
10.3(25)
|
8.7(32)
|
3.9(14)
|
11.4(9)
|
16.7(9)
|
9.8(18)
|
5.5(27)
|
8.2(26)
|
|
No, not needed
|
56.6(137)
|
61.2(224)
|
76.8(274)
|
62.0(49)
|
55.6(30)
|
57.6(106)
|
71.0(347)
|
63.4(201)
|
|
Perception of Risk of child contracting COVID-19
|
High risk
|
16.5(40)
|
5.7(21)
|
7.8(28)
|
11.4(9)
|
p< 0.000
|
22.2(12)
|
12.5(23)
|
7.8(38)
|
7.9(25)
|
p< 0.000
|
Moderately concerned
|
38.4(93)
|
32.2(118)
|
24.7(88)
|
38.0(30)
|
44.4(24)
|
40.2(74)
|
27.4(134)
|
30.6(97)
|
|
Slightly concerned
|
36.0(87)
|
50.6(185)
|
49.9(178)
|
32.9(26)
|
22.2(12)
|
35.9(66)
|
50.9(249)
|
47.0(149)
|
|
Not at all
|
9.1(22)
|
11.5(42)
|
17.7(63)
|
17.7(14)
|
11.1(6)
|
11.4(21)
|
13.9(68)
|
14.5(46)
|
|
Perception of effect of COVI-19 on child
|
Very unwell
|
15.7(38)
|
5.5(20)
|
8.7(31)
|
17.7(14)
|
p< 0.000
|
24.1(13)
|
7.6(14)
|
9.0(44)
|
10.1(32)
|
p< 0.000
|
Quite unwell
|
35.1(85)
|
29.0(106)
|
23.8(85)
|
24.1(19)
|
27.8(15)
|
37.5(69)
|
28.8(141)
|
22.1(70)
|
|
Somewhat unwell
|
40.9(99)
|
54.1(198)
|
51.5(184)
|
45.6(36)
|
37.0(20)
|
42.4(78)
|
48.7(238)
|
57.1(181)
|
|
Unaffected
|
8.3(20)
|
11.5(42)
|
16.0(57)
|
12.7(10)
|
11.1(6)
|
12.5(23)
|
13.5(66)
|
10.7(34)
|
|
DASS Stress
|
Normal
|
49.2(119)
|
65.3(239)
|
74.5(266)
|
69.6(55)
|
p< 0.000
|
37.0(20)
|
53.8(99)
|
71.6(350)
|
66.3(210)
|
p< 0.000
|
Mild
|
16.1(39)
|
12.8(47)
|
10.9(39)
|
10.1(8)
|
16.7(9)
|
18.5(34)
|
10.8(53)
|
11.7(37)
|
|
Moderate
|
18.2(44)
|
13.9(51)
|
9.2(33)
|
12.7(10)
|
22.2(12)
|
15.8(29)
|
10.4(51)
|
14.5(46)
|
|
Severe
|
12.8(31)
|
6.3(23)
|
4.2(15)
|
7.6(6)
|
22.2(12)
|
8.7(16)
|
5.5(27)
|
6.3(20)
|
|
Extremely severe
|
3.7(9)
|
1.6(6)
|
1.1(4)
|
0.0(0)
|
1.9(1)
|
3.3(6)
|
1.6(8)
|
1.3(4)
|
|
Healthcare during COVID-19
34% of participants stated that their child required healthcare during the pandemic, of whom 22% (n = 80) decided against seeking healthcare. Of those that did, 42% had a face-to face consultation with a general practitioner (GP) or through private facilities, while 39% availed of a remote consultation by phone or video. 13% of those that accessed healthcare did so at an emergency department (ED). Table 3 displays the characteristics of those who needed healthcare, split by whether or not healthcare was accessed. Chi-square (χ2) tests were utilized to identify differences between those who accessed healthcare and those who decided against. 66.1% of those who attended services were concerned about their child contracting COVID-19 while 54% of those that avoided healthcare reported this concern (χ2 (1) 4.0678, p=0.04), while 43% were concerned that the service was needed more by others compared to 18.2% of those who attended (χ2 (1) 20.3470, p<0.000). No other significant difference between the groups was found.
Table 3
Healthcare Avoidance during COVID-19
N=360
|
|
|
Accessed healthcare
% (n)
|
Needed healthcare but avoided
% (n)
|
p-value
|
Needed healthcare for child
|
|
77.8(280)
|
22.2(80)
|
|
Type of healthcare accessed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Face to face (GP/Private service)
|
41.9(111)
|
n/a
|
|
|
Video/Phone
|
39.3(104)
|
n/a
|
|
|
ED
|
13.6(36)
|
n/a
|
|
|
Other
|
5.3(14)
|
n/a
|
|
Gender of parent
|
Female
|
66.8(187)
|
58.8(47)
|
p= 0.184
|
Age of parent
|
<29
|
16.8(47)
|
18.8(15)
|
p=0.587
|
|
30- 39
|
48.9(137)
|
46.3(37)
|
|
40-49
|
25.4(71)
|
30.0(24)
|
|
50>
|
8.9(25)
|
5.0(4)
|
Marital Status
|
Single
|
8.2(23)
|
8.8(7)
|
p=0.244
|
|
Married
|
70.0(196)
|
58.8(47)
|
|
Cohabiting
|
16.4(46)
|
25.0(20)
|
|
Divorced/Separated/Widowed
|
5.4(15)
|
7.5(6)
|
Location
|
Dublin
|
30.7(86)
|
28.8(23)
|
p=0.144
|
|
Cork
|
7.9(22)
|
16.3(13)
|
|
Galway
|
7.5(21)
|
8.8(7)
|
|
Rest of country
|
53.9(151)
|
46.3(37)
|
No. of children
|
One child
|
30.4(85)
|
41.3(33)
|
p= 0.145
|
|
Two children
|
41.8(406)
|
38.8(31)
|
|
Three or more children
|
27.9(78)
|
20.0(16)
|
Education
|
Lower Secondary
|
3.2(9)
|
7.5(6)
|
p= 0.360
|
|
Upper Secondary
|
12.1(34)
|
10.0(8)
|
|
Post-Secondary certificate /vocational
|
26.8(75)
|
23.8(19)
|
|
Degree or Postgraduate
|
57.9(162)
|
58.8(47)
|
Health cover status
|
No cover
|
11.4(32)
|
20.0(16)
|
p=0.066
|
|
Medical card only
|
27.1(76)
|
31.3(25)
|
|
GP visit card only
|
8.2(23)
|
10.0(8)
|
|
Private Insurance only
|
35.0(98)
|
31.3(25)
|
|
Both insurance & medical card
|
18.2(51)
|
7.5(6)
|
Healthcare professional
|
|
15.7(44)
|
8.8(7)
|
p=0.115
|
Underlying health conditions in household
|
|
55.4(155)
|
55.0(44)
|
p= 0.955
|
Child under 16 with underlying health condition
|
|
23.9(67)
|
22.5(18)
|
p=0.791
|
Member of household isolated
|
|
39.6(111)
|
28.8(23)
|
p=0.075
|
Ease of access to services
|
|
GP
|
ED
|
GP
|
ED
|
GP: p = 0.077
ED: p= 0.874
|
|
Very easy
|
33.6(94)
|
18.9(53)
|
23.8(19)
|
20.0(16)
|
|
Usually easy
|
32.1(90)
|
26.8(75)
|
31.3(25)
|
21.3(17)
|
|
I can if I need to
|
22.1(62)
|
37.1(104)
|
25.0(20)
|
38.8(31)
|
|
Somewhat difficult
|
10.7(30)
|
12.5(35)
|
13.8(11)
|
13.8(11)
|
|
Very difficult
|
1.4(4)
|
4.6(13)
|
6.3(5)
|
6.3(5)
|
Hesitancy during Contain and Mitigation Stage
|
Much more
|
28.6(80)
|
31.3(25)
|
p = 0.460
|
|
Somewhat more
|
39.3(110)
|
40.0(32)
|
|
About the same
|
24.6(69)
|
17.5(14)
|
|
Somewhat or much less
|
7.5(21)
|
11.3(9)
|
Hesitancy during Phase one of reopening
|
Much more
|
5.4(15)
|
11.3(9)
|
p = 0.249
|
|
Somewhat more
|
21.4(60)
|
22.5(18)
|
|
About the same
|
41.1(115)
|
33.8(27)
|
|
Somewhat or much less
|
32.1(90)
|
32.5(26)
|
Concerns about accessing healthcare during COVID
|
Worried about catching COVID- 19
|
66.1(185)
|
53.8(43)
|
p=0.044
|
|
Worried about being judged for using a service if it wasn’t an emergency
|
25.4(71)
|
27.5(22)
|
p= 0.699
|
|
Thought the service would be needed more urgently by other people
|
18.2(51)
|
42.5(34)
|
p > 0.000
|
|
Thought the government advice meant I couldn’t go to the GP or hospital
|
15.0(42)
|
11.3(9)
|
p = 0.396
|
|
Worried that the service would be extremely busy and would have to wait for too long
|
28.2(79)
|
20.0(16)
|
p = 0.142
|
|
Don’t have a car and didn’t want to use public transport
|
7.1(20)
|
6.3(5)
|
p=0.782
|
|
Something else
|
11.1(31)
|
15.0(12)
|
p= 0.339
|
Perception of Risk of child contracting COVID
|
High risk
|
12.5(35)
|
11.3(9)
|
p= 0.842
|
|
Moderately concerned
|
31.4(88)
|
31.3(25)
|
|
Slightly concerned
|
40.4(113)
|
45.0(36)
|
|
Not at all
|
15.7(141)
|
12.5(10)
|
Perception of effect of COVID on child
|
Very unwell
|
12.9(36)
|
11.3(9)
|
p=0.960
|
|
Quite unwell
|
29.3(82)
|
31.3(25)
|
|
Somewhat unwell
|
45.4(127)
|
46.3(37)
|
|
Unaffected
|
12.5(35)
|
11.3(9)
|
DASS Stress
|
Normal
|
50.7(142)
|
56.3(45)
|
p= 0.291
|
|
Mild
|
19.6(55)
|
16.3(55)
|
|
Moderate
|
17.1(48)
|
13.8(11)
|
|
Severe
|
9.3(26)
|
13.8(11)
|
|
Extremely severe
|
3.2(9)
|
0.0(0)
|
Regression Analyses
For the purpose of regression analysis, some categorical variables were collapsed to ensure adequate sample size and to aid interpretation, such as age of parent (under 40/ over 40), education (below degree/degree post grad), concern of effect of COVID-19 on child (somewhat unwell or unaffected/ very or quite unwell), perception of risk of child contracting COVID -19 (slightly concerned or not at all/ highly or moderately concerned) and easy access to the GP or ED (very or usually easy/ can if I have to, somewhat or very difficult). For the DASS stress categories, mild and moderate stress were collapsed into one category and severe and extremely severe stress were also collapsed into one category. Details of these groups can be viewed in Additional File 3.
Hesitancy to attend health services
The results from a multinomial regression estimating the association between reported hesitancy to attend health services and demographic, health, and COVID-related characteristics are represented in Table 4. Females were found to be twice as likely to report being much more hesitant during the Delay and Mitigation stage (RRR= 194, CI: 1.33 - 2.82). Higher than normal stress levels were also significantly associated with hesitancy. Those who reported mild/ moderate stress were over twice as likely to report being much more hesitant (RRR= 2.31, CI: 1.54 - 3.47), while those with severe/extremely severe stress were over three times more likely (RRR:3.37, CI:1.81 - 6.27). Finally, those who felt that the government advice was to stay away from health services were 1.7 times more likely to be much more hesitant (RRR:1.71, CI; 1.10 – 2.67).
In Phase One of reopening, while fewer respondents were much more or somewhat more hesitant, those with higher than normal stress levels were more likely to report hesitancy than in the Delay and Mitigation phase than those with normal stress levels. Respondents who reported having severe or extremely severe stress levels were over five times more likely to be much more hesitant (RRR: 5.22, CI: 2.22-12.29), while those with mild or moderate stress levels were over three times more likely (RRR: 3.10, CI: 1.56 - 6.20). Similarly, those who felt government advice was to stay away had a slightly higher likelihood of reporting being much more hesitant in Phase One (RRR: 2.19, CI: 1.12 – 4.29). Parents who accessed healthcare for their child during the Delay and Mitigation phase were no more or less hesitant about accessing during Phase One.
Table 4
Multinomial Regression Results; Reported Hesitancy in both Lockdown and Phase One periods N= 1044
Ref: About the same
|
Delay & Mitigation Period (“Lockdown”)
|
Phase One of reopening
|
|
Much more
|
Somewhat more
|
Somewhat or much less
|
Much more
|
Somewhat more
|
Somewhat or much less
|
Gender: Female
|
1.94**
(1.33 - 2.82)
|
1.37*
(1.00 - 1.88)
|
0.71
(0.43 - 1.20)
|
1.33
(0.71 - 2.48)
|
1.16
(0.80 - 1.67)
|
1.67**
(1.23 - 2.28)
|
Participant Age: Under 40
|
0.90
(0.63 - 1.29)
|
1.01
(0.74 - 1.38)
|
1.53
(0.89 - 2.61)
|
0.79
(0.41 - 1.50)
|
1.25
(0.86 - 1.82)
|
0.82
(0.61 - 1.12)
|
Marital Status: Married or cohabiting
|
0.95
(0.59 - 1.52)
|
1.38
(0.90 - 2.13)
|
1.57
(0.75 - 3.30)
|
0.60
(0.27 - 1.32)
|
1.06
(0.64 - 1.77)
|
0.77
(0.51 - 1.16)
|
Education: Degree or Post-graduate
|
1.14
(0.79 - 1.65)
|
1.17
(0.86 - 1.61)
|
0.95
(0.56 - 1.63)
|
0.90
(0.48 - 1.68)
|
0.98
(0.67 - 1.41)
|
0.87
(0.64 - 1.19)
|
Health Cover (ref: no cover)
|
Medical card only
|
0.86
(0.50 - 1.46)
|
0.99
(0.63 - 1.55)
|
2.52*
(1.14 - 5.57)
|
1.00
(0.35 - 2.88)
|
0.90
(0.52 - 1.54)
|
0.64*
(0.41 - 0.99)
|
GP visit card only
|
1.70
(0.81 - 3.57)
|
1.65
(0.87 - 3.14)
|
2.52
(0.87 - 7.28)
|
0.73
(0.14 - 3.90)
|
1.14
(0.56 - 2.33)
|
0.70
(0.38 - 1.31)
|
Health insurance
|
1.29
(0.79 - 2.13)
|
1.20
(0.79 - 1.84)
|
1.11
(0.48 - 2.60)
|
1.95
(0.73 - 5.15)
|
1.06
(0.63 - 1.79)
|
1.09
(0.73 - 1.65)
|
Health insurance and Medical card
|
1.22
(0.60 - 2.50)
|
1.42
(0.77 - 2.63)
|
2.62
(0.93 - 7.32)
|
3.14
(0.98 - 10.10)
|
1.27
(0.64 - 2.55)
|
0.83
(0.45 - 1.54)
|
Healthcare worker
|
0.87
(0.48 - 1.58)
|
0.90
(0.54 - 1.49)
|
1.23
(0.55 - 2.75)
|
2.15
(0.89 - 5.20)
|
1.15
(0.65 - 2.03)
|
0.83
(0.50 - 1.38)
|
No. of Children (ref: three children or more)
|
One child
|
0.72
(0.44 - 1.17)
|
0.49**
(0.32 - 0.75)
|
0.33**
(0.17 - 0.65)
|
1.04
(0.45 - 2.40)
|
0.89
(0.55 - 1.43)
|
0.57**
(0.38 - 0.85)
|
Two children
|
0.85
(0.52 - 1.39)
|
0.64*
(0.42 - 0.98)
|
0.56
(0.30 - 1.06)
|
1.09
(0.47 - 2.53)
|
0.91
(0.57 - 1.47)
|
0.78
(0.53 - 1.14)
|
Health condition household
|
1.08
(0.72 - 1.63)
|
0.99
(0.70 - 1.41)
|
1.09
(0.61 - 1.95)
|
0.63
(0.31 - 1.28)
|
1.07
(0.71 - 1.61)
|
1.22
(0.87 - 1.72)
|
Health condition under 16 child(ren)
|
1.45
(0.83 - 2.51)
|
1.34
(0.81 - 2.22)
|
0.75
(0.32 - 1.79)
|
0.36
(0.11 - 1.11)
|
0.76
(0.44 - 1.32)
|
0.77
(0.48 - 1.23)
|
DASS Stress (ref: normal)
|
Mild/moderate
|
2.31***
(1.54 - 3.47)
|
1.46*
(1.01 - 2.10)
|
1.03
(0.55 - 1.92)
|
3.10**
(1.56 - 6.20)
|
1.91**
(1.27 - 2.87)
|
1.34
(0.94 - 1.91)
|
Severe/extremely severe
|
3.37***
(1.81 - 6.27)
|
1.48
(0.79 - 2.77)
|
1.18
(0.43 - 3.22)
|
5.22***
(2.22 - 12.29)
|
1.80
(0.98 - 3.30)
|
1.12
(0.63 - 1.99)
|
Very or quite concerned effect COVID on child
|
1.45
(0.98 - 2.13)
|
0.91
(0.65 - 1.29)
|
1.09
(0.63 - 1.90)
|
1.44
(0.74 - 2.79)
|
1.04
(0.70 - 1.53)
|
0.68*
(0.49 - 0.96)
|
High risk/moderately concerned risk contracting COVID child
|
1.85**
(1.27 - 2.70)
|
1.22
(0.87 - 1.71)
|
1.87*
(1.09 - 3.22)
|
2.78**
(1.43 - 5.40)
|
1.87**
(1.28 - 2.73)
|
1.24
(0.90 - 1.72)
|
Gov advice stay away
|
1.71*
(1.10 - 2.67)
|
1.17
(0.77 - 1.78)
|
0.75
(0.35 - 1.59)
|
2.19*
(1.12 - 4.29)
|
1.19
(0.76 - 1.87)
|
1.01
(0.68 - 1.51)
|
Easy access to GP
|
1.15
(0.77 - 1.72)
|
1.09
(0.77 - 1.54)
|
0.80
(0.46 - 1.41)
|
1.51
(0.74 - 3.08)
|
1.30
(0.87 - 1.95)
|
1.09
(0.79 - 1.52)
|
Easy access to ED
|
1.09
(0.74 - 1.60)
|
0.97
(0.70 - 1.36)
|
0.91
(0.51 - 1.60)
|
1.18
(0.61 - 2.29)
|
1.11
(0.76 - 1.64)
|
0.94
(0.68 - 1.29)
|
Household member self-isolated
|
1.17
(0.77 - 1.79)
|
1.24
(0.85 - 1.81)
|
0.70
(0.36 - 1.36)
|
1.13
(0.55 - 2.34)
|
1.10
(0.72 - 1.69)
|
1.00
(0.70 - 1.45)
|
Accessed healthcare
|
|
|
|
0.96
(0.46 - 2.00)
|
1.24
(0.82 - 1.87)
|
1.24
(0.87 - 1.76)
|
* = p < .05
** = p < .01
*** = p < .001
|
Official public health advice to avoid health services
Logistic regressions were carried out to examine the factors that contributed to the understanding that government advice was to stay away from health services. The results are reported in Table 5.
When using the full sample (N = 1,044), those who reported mild or moderate stress levels were 1.7 times more likely to hold this perception (OR: 1.66, CI: 1.14 – 2.41), while those with severe or extremely severe stress were nearly twice as likely (OR: 1.87, CI: 1.10 – 3.20). Looking specifically at the group who needed to access healthcare (n=360), those that had mild or moderate stress levels were 2.4 times more likely to have reported that they thought government advice was to stay away (OR: 2.36, CI: 1.12 – 4.99). Those that reported severe or extremely severe stress were also more likely to hold this perception, however this was not significant (OR: 2.29, CI: 0.87 – 6.07). Those that perceived their child to be at high or moderate risk of contracting COVID-19 were 3.4 times more likely to believe the official public advice was to avoid healthcare services (OR:3.40, CI:1.59-7.28). On the other hand, those that were very or quite concerned about the effect COVID-19 would have on their child were less likely to hold this view (OR: 0.43, CI:0.20-0.94).
Table 1
Odds Ratio from Logistic Regression
|
Believed government advice was to stay away (n=1,044)
ODDS Ratio (95% conf. Interval)
|
Believed government advice was to stay away, healthcare needed only (n=360)
ODDS Ratio (95% conf. Interval)
|
Gender: Female
|
0.96
(0.69-1.36)
|
1.43
(0.69-2.96)
|
Participant Age: Under 40
|
1.18
(0.83-1.66)
|
1.83
(0.84-3.97)
|
Marital Status: Married or cohabiting
|
1.45
(0.89-2.37)
|
0.94
(0.36-2.48)
|
Education: Degree or Post-graduate
|
1.39
(0.98-1.97)
|
1.50
(0.73-3.09)
|
Health cover
|
|
|
Medical card only
|
1.24
(0.74-2.06)
|
1.95
(0.55-6.83)
|
GP visit card only
|
1.11
(0.55-2.25)
|
2.00
(0.40-9.91)
|
Health insurance
|
1.05
(0.64-1.71)
|
1.52
(0.42-5.46)
|
Health insurance and Medical card
|
1.32
(0.69-2.52)
|
3.13
(0.83-11.82)
|
Healthcare worker
|
0.64
(0.36-1.16)
|
0.83
(0.32-2.12)
|
No. of Children: (ref: three children or more)
|
|
|
One child
|
1.37
(0.87-2.16)
|
1.14
(0.48-2.68)
|
Two children
|
1.08
(0.68-1.71)
|
0.97
(0.43-2.19)
|
Health condition household
|
1.10
(0.75-1.60)
|
2.69*
(1.21-5.98)
|
Health condition under 16 child(ren)
|
0.86
(0.51-1.46)
|
0.85
(0.37-1.95)
|
DASS Stress: (ref: normal)
|
|
|
Mild/moderate
|
1.66**
(1.14-2.41)
|
2.36*
(1.12-4.99)
|
Severe/extremely severe
|
1.87*
(1.10-3.20)
|
2.29
(0.87-6.07)
|
Very or quite concerned effect COVID on child
|
0.89
(0.62-1.29)
|
0.43*
(0.20-0.94)
|
High risk/moderately concerned risk contracting COVID child
|
1.28
(0.89-1.82)
|
3.40**
(1.59-7.28)
|
Household member self-isolated
|
0.99
(0.67-1.48)
|
0.72
(0.34-1.52)
|
Easy access to GP
|
0.68*
(0.47-0.98)
|
0.84
(0.41-1.74)
|
Easy access to ED
|
0.97
(0.67-1.40)
|
1.21
(0.60-2.44)
|
* = p < .05
** = p < .01
*** = p < .001
|