IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i9p4808-d547106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survey on Public Psychological Intervention Demand and Influence Factors Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Fang Su

    (School of Economics and Management, Shaanxi University of Science & Technology, Xi’an 710000, China)

  • Bingjie Fan

    (School of Economics and Management, Shaanxi University of Science & Technology, Xi’an 710000, China)

  • Nini Song

    (School of Economics and Management, Shaanxi University of Science & Technology, Xi’an 710000, China)

  • Xue Dong

    (Mental Health Education Center, School of Education, Shaanxi University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710000, China)

  • Yanxia Wang

    (Department of Scientific Research Center, Gansu Provincial Maternity and Child-Care Hospital, Lanzhou 730050, China)

  • Jingzhong Li

    (School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, Xuchang University, Xuchang 461000, China)

  • Bing Xue

    (Key Lab of Pollution Ecology & Environmental Engineering, Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang 110016, China)

  • Xianrong Qiao

    (Arts and Sciences School, Translation and Cultural Communication Research Institute, Shaanxi University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710000, China)

Abstract

Major public health emergencies would have a negative influence on the psychology of the public, and an effective psychological intervention can help them to relieve some emotions, such as tension and panic. However, differences in individual environments affect people’s psychological intervention demands and intervention mode choices. Therefore, it is of great theoretical and practical value to analyze and identify the key factors affecting these demands and choices. Based on a nationwide sample of 24,188 respondents from the “Internet Survey of Residents’ Behavioral Changes and Psychological Conditions during the Epidemic”, the different characteristics of public psychological intervention demands and choices under different factors are explored in this paper. The results demonstrate that: (1) the psychological status of Chinese people was relatively stable during the epidemic period, and there were 1016 respondents who had subjective demands for a psychological intervention, (2) age, gender, occupation type, residence, family size, risk perception, psychological status, education level, and fixed expenditure all significantly affect public psychological intervention demands, and (3) risk perception, psychological status, age, gender, and family size will impact the choice of psychological intervention methods. The above results can provide a decision-making basis for the construction of a psychological intervention system in psychological crisis management during the post-epidemic prevention and control period, as well as reference and suggestions for handling psychological stress of similar sudden crisis events in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Fang Su & Bingjie Fan & Nini Song & Xue Dong & Yanxia Wang & Jingzhong Li & Bing Xue & Xianrong Qiao, 2021. "Survey on Public Psychological Intervention Demand and Influence Factors Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-16, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:9:p:4808-:d:547106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/9/4808/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/9/4808/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kunho Lee & Goo-Churl Jeong & JongEun Yim, 2020. "Consideration of the Psychological and Mental Health of the Elderly during COVID-19: A Theoretical Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-11, November.
    2. Riccardo Cristadoro & Daniela Marconi, 2012. "Household savings in China," Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 275-299, November.
    3. Yasuto Kunii & Yuriko Suzuki & Tetsuya Shiga & Hirooki Yabe & Seiji Yasumura & Masaharu Maeda & Shin-ichi Niwa & Akira Otsuru & Hirobumi Mashiko & Masafumi Abe & Mental Health Group of the Fukushima H, 2016. "Severe Psychological Distress of Evacuees in Evacuation Zone Caused by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, July.
    4. Shuyeu Lin & Daigee Shaw & Ming-Chou Ho, 2008. "Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public?," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 44(2), pages 305-314, February.
    5. Lisa D. Pearce & Sarah R. Brauner-Otto & Yingchun Ji, 2015. "Explaining religious differentials in family-size preference: Evidence from Nepal in 1996," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(1), pages 23-37, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    2. Christian Dreger & Tongsan Wang & Yanqun Zhang, 2015. "Understanding Chinese Consumption: The Impact of Hukou," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 46(6), pages 1331-1344, November.
    3. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Mendonca, Marcos Barreto de & Gullo, Fernanda Teles, 2020. "Landslide risk perception survey in Angra dos Reis (Rio de Janeiro, southeastern Brazil): A contribution to support planning of non structural measures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Karina Landeros-Mugica & Javier Urbina-Soria & Irasema Alcántara-Ayala, 2016. "The good, the bad and the ugly: on the interactions among experience, exposure and commitment with reference to landslide risk perception in México," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1515-1537, February.
    6. Kyoko Yoshioka‐Maeda & Mariko Kuroda & Taisuke Togari, 2018. "Difficulties of fathers whose families evacuated voluntarily after the Fukushima nuclear disaster," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 296-303, September.
    7. Enrica Di Stefano & Daniela Marconi, 2015. "Assessing potential growth in emerging countries after the global financial crisis," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 256, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    8. Raul P. Lejano & Muhammad Saidur Rahman & Laila Kabir, 2020. "Risk Communication for Empowerment: Interventions in a Rohingya Refugee Settlement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2360-2372, November.
    9. Hsiao-Hsien Lin & Tzu-Yun Lin & Chun-Wei Hsu & Che-Hsiu Chen & Qi-Yuan Li & Po-Hsuan Wu, 2022. "Moderating Effects of Religious Tourism Activities on Environmental Risk, Leisure Satisfaction, Physical and Mental Health and Well-Being among the Elderly in the Context of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-17, November.
    10. Ling Tian & Peng Yao & Shi-jie Jiang, 2014. "Perception of earthquake risk: a study of the earthquake insurance pilot area in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 74(3), pages 1595-1611, December.
    11. Chou, Wan-Jung & Huang, Yu-Chia & Chang, Ching-Cheng, 2015. "Precautionary Intentions and Risk Perceptions: Empirical Evidence from the Victims of Typhoon Morakot," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205549, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Seunghye Choi & Hana Ko, 2022. "Social Frailty among Community-Dwelling Older Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-10, September.
    13. Fang Jing & Li-Zhuang Yang & Ya-Li Peng & Ying Wang & Xiaochu Zhang & Da-Ren Zhang, 2017. "Enhancing the effectiveness of flood road gauges with color coding," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 88(1), pages 55-70, August.
    14. Daniela Marconi & Lorenzo Bencivelli & Anna Marra & Alessandro Schiavone & Raffaele Tartaglia-Polcini, 2016. "Offshore RMB markets in Europe: prospects for greater financial integration between Europe and China," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 334, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    15. Michel, Philippe, 2021. "Model of neo-Malthusian population anticipating future changes in resources," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 16-31.
    16. Marina Malkina, 2019. "Determinants of Private Savings in the Form of Bank Deposits: A Case Study on Regions of the Russian Federation," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-22, June.
    17. Junko Okuyama & Shin-Ichi Izumi & Shunichi Funakoshi & Shuji Seto & Hiroyuki Sasaki & Kiyoshi Ito & Fumihiko Imamura & Mayumi Willgerodt & Yu Fukuda, 2022. "Supporting adolescents’ mental health during COVID-19 by utilising lessons from the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    18. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    19. Wim Kellens & Teun Terpstra & Philippe De Maeyer, 2013. "Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 24-49, January.
    20. Shan Lu & Wonseok Oh & Ryozo Ooka & Lijun Wang, 2022. "Effects of Environmental Features in Small Public Urban Green Spaces on Older Adults’ Mental Restoration: Evidence from Tokyo," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-22, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:9:p:4808-:d:547106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.