personal risk
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

323
(FIVE YEARS 98)

H-INDEX

32
(FIVE YEARS 4)

2021 ◽  
Vol specjalny (XXI) ◽  
pp. 83-91
Author(s):  
Łukasz Pisarczyk

The article discusses the employer’s risk as a principle of labour law. The idea of employer’s risk is that the employer bears the consequences of obstacles in the performance of the employment relationship that it has not caused. The author distinguishes the obstacles: not related (the employer’s risk in a strict sense) and related to the employee (personal risk). As a rule, the employer bears the risk of circumstances not related to the employee. The nature as well as the application scope of regulations allow to formulate a normative principle of the labour law. At the same time the employer bears the risk of the obstacles related to the employee only in cases specified in the labour law, both: statutory standards as well as autonomous provisions. As a result, the personal risk of the employer cannot be considered to be a normative principle of the labour law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-113
Author(s):  
Beata Przyborowska ◽  
Piotr Błajet

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented changes in educational, professional, and leisure activities around the world. Protecting health against the virus has become the most important task in the social and individual dimension. The aim of the study was to diagnose changes in the behaviour and health beliefs of students. The WHO definition of health and the Health Belief Model (HBM) were adopted as the theoretical basis for defining variables. The study was of diagnostic and verification nature, and a quantitative strategy was used in it. The general population comprised students of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun. The study was conducted electronically in 2020, during the first lockdown in Poland. The Likert scale was used as a tool to assess the degree of change. The respondents declared the greatest changes in terms of caring about physical and relational health. The declared behavioural changes concerned the most conservative, trained forms of pro-health activity. Despite the declared beliefs about the importance of maintaining health and the personal risk of viral infection, the respondents declared undertaking more advanced pro-health activities only to a small extent.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Blumenau ◽  
Timothy Hicks ◽  
Raluca L. Pahontu

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a large shock to the risk of acquiring a disease that represents a meaningful threat to health. We investigate whether individuals subject to larger increases in objective health risk -- operationalised by occupation-based measures of proximity to other people -- became more supportive of increased government healthcare spending during the crisis. Using panel data which tracks UK individuals before and after the outbreak of the pandemic, we implement a fixed-effect design which was pre-registered before the key treatment variable was available to us. While individuals in high-risk occupations were more worried about their personal risk of infection, and had higher COVID death rates, there is no evidence that increased health risks during COVID-19 shifted attitudes on government spending on healthcare, nor broader attitudes relating to redistribution. Our findings are consistent with recent research demonstrating the limited effects of the pandemic on political attitudes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-162
Author(s):  
Rebecca V. Bell-Martin ◽  
Alejandro Díaz Domínguez

Research suggests partisanship influences individual perceptions of COVID-19 risk and preventative behaviors. We ask a distinct but equally urgent question: what factors are associated with variation in risk perception among co-partisans? Even among members of the same party, some individuals’ risk perceptions reflect the party line while others deviate from it. We explore this question in Mexico, where the president utilized his rhetoric to downplay the severity of the pandemic. Why do some of the presidents’ co-partisans perceive COVID-19 as a serious risk (despite partisan appeals to the contrary), while others do not? Drawing on theories of risk perception, we hypothesize that this variation is associated with personal risk experience, like knowing someone who contracted COVID-19. We test this hypothesis via a large-n survey of MORENA supporters. We find that personal experiences are consistently associated with variation in risk perception. Strength of partisan ties, meanwhile, is only activated when paired with risk experience.


Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1276
Author(s):  
Giorgia Della Polla ◽  
Concetta Paola Pelullo ◽  
Gabriella Di Giuseppe ◽  
Italo Francesco Angelillo

The objectives of the cross-sectional study were to measure how behaviors and attitudes about preventive measures toward COVID-19 changed over time among Italian vaccinated healthcare workers and university students, and the associated characteristics. The study was carried out between February and March 2021 in the city of Naples, Campania region, Southern Italy. The perceived personal risk of being infected by SARS-CoV-2 after the vaccination was significantly higher among males, in those having a higher perceived personal risk of being infected by SARS-CoV-2 before the vaccination, and in those who were more concerned about the efficacy of the vaccination. The fear of getting the disease as reason to have the COVID-19 vaccination was reported more frequently in younger participants, in those with at least one chronic medical condition, in those with a higher concern about the severity of COVID-19, in those with a higher level of trust in the information received, and in those who acquired information from scientific journals. Overall, 21.3% were willing to engage the three main public health measures (wearing a mask, careful hand washing, physical distancing) after receiving the second dose of the vaccination compared to the behavior before the pandemic began. This willingness was predicted by a higher level of trust in the information received and by a lower self-rated health status. Only 0.1% of participants were willing to engage all three measures after receiving the second dose of the vaccination compared to the behavior before receiving the first dose. These findings are useful in order to develop information strategies regarding vaccine safety and efficacy and the importance of public health measures against COVID-19.


BMC Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eden V. Haverfield ◽  
Edward D. Esplin ◽  
Sienna J. Aguilar ◽  
Kathryn E. Hatchell ◽  
Kelly E. Ormond ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Kuper-Smith ◽  
Lisa M. Doppelhofer ◽  
Yulia Oganian ◽  
Gabriela Rosenblau ◽  
Christoph W. Korn

Slowing the spread of COVID-19 requires people to actively change their lives by following protective practices, such as physical distancing and disinfecting their hands. Perceptions about the personal risk of COVID-19 may affect compliance with these practices. In this study, we assessed risk perception and optimism about COVID-19 in a multinational (UK, USA and Germany), longitudinal design during the early stages of the pandemic (16 March 2020; 1 April 2020; 20 May 2020). Our main findings are that (i) people showed a comparative optimism bias about getting infected and infecting others, but not for getting severe symptoms, (ii) this optimism bias did not change over time, (iii) optimism bias seemed to relate to perceived level of control over the action, (iv) risk perception was linked to publicly available information about the disorder, (v) people reported adhering closely to protective measures but these measures did not seem to be related to risk perception, and (vi) risk perception was related to questions about stress and anxiety. In additional cross-sectional samples, we replicated our most important findings. Our open and partly preregistered results provide detailed descriptions of risk perceptions and optimistic beliefs during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in three Western countries.


2021 ◽  
pp. 095679762110159
Author(s):  
Jörg Gross ◽  
Nadira S. Faber ◽  
Andreas Kappes ◽  
Anne-Marie Nussberger ◽  
Philip J. Cowen ◽  
...  

Helping other people can entail risks for the helper. For example, when treating infectious patients, medical volunteers risk their own health. In such situations, decisions to help should depend on the individual’s valuation of others’ well-being (social preferences) and the degree of personal risk the individual finds acceptable (risk preferences). We investigated how these distinct preferences are psychologically and neurobiologically integrated when helping is risky. We used incentivized decision-making tasks (Study 1; N = 292 adults) and manipulated dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the brain by administering methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or a placebo (Study 2; N = 154 adults). We found that social and risk preferences are independent drivers of risky helping. Methylphenidate increased risky helping by selectively altering risk preferences rather than social preferences. Atomoxetine influenced neither risk preferences nor social preferences and did not affect risky helping. This suggests that methylphenidate-altered dopamine concentrations affect helping decisions that entail a risk to the helper.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0258432
Author(s):  
James M. Leonhardt ◽  
Garret Ridinger ◽  
Yu Rong ◽  
Amir Talaei-Khoe

Some people feel they are invincible to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). They believe that being infected with COVID-19 would not be a serious threat to their health. While these people may or may not be correct in their personal risk assessment, we find that such perceived invincibility may undermine community efforts to achieve herd immunity. Multi-level analysis of survey respondents across 51 countries finds that perceived invincibility from COVID-19 is negatively associated with believing there is a need to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in one’s community (n = 218,956) and one’s willingness to inoculate against the disease (n = 71,148). These effects are most pronounced among individuals from countries lower in cultural collectivism (e.g., USA, UK, Canada) and highlight the need to consider the interplay of individual and cultural factors in our efforts to understand, predict, and promote preventative health behavior during a pandemic.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Tchitchinadze ◽  
O Milleron ◽  
L Eliahou ◽  
S Jadoui ◽  
N Ould Ouali ◽  
...  

Abstract Background A history family of aortic dissection was considered as a risk factor for aortic dissection in patients with Marfan syndrome with a FBN1 mutation. Objectives Evaluate whether a family history of aortic dissection is a risk marker for dissection in this population Methods Retrospective study of patients coming to the reference centre between 1996 and 2018, carrying a FBN1 gene mutation. Pedigrees were obtained for each patient, and familial screening actively pursued. Patients with a family history of aortic dissection were compared with patients without family history of aortic dissection. Results 1700 patients (age 33.2 (±17) years, 51% women) with a FBN1 gene mutation were included. 145 (8,5%) patients underwent aortic dissection at a mean age of 37.9 (±11.4) years and 323 (19%) patients had been operated at 33.8 (±13.9) years. 481 patients had a family history of aortic dissection, including 38 who dissected themselves, and 88 who underwent surgery. 1219 had no family history of aortic dissection, including 107 who dissected themselves, and 235 who underwent surgery. Therefore, the personal risk for aortic dissection was similar in patients with and without a family history of aortic dissection (38/481, i.e. 7.9% vs 107/1219, i.e. 8.8%), as was the personal risk for prophylactic aortic surgery (88/481, i.e. 18.3% vs. 253/1219, i.e. 17.2%), and the risk for either aortic dissection or prophylactic aortic surgery (118/481, i.e. 24.5% vs. 328/1219, i.e. 26.9%). Conclusions In Marfan syndrome with a FBN1 gene mutation, a family history of aortic dissection is not a marker of aortic disease severity. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document