4.3 Article

Education, health behavior, and working conditions during the pandemic: evidence from a German sample

期刊

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
卷 23, 期 -, 页码 S275-S288

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14616696.2020.1824004

关键词

Health behavior; health inequality; education; working conditions; coronavirus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that over three quarters of respondents in all educational groups in Germany complied with recommended social distancing and hand hygiene behaviors, and educational differences did not exceed ten percentage points. In terms of working conditions, highly educated individuals had a higher likelihood of working from home during the pandemic, with the numbers decreasing for those with intermediate and low levels of education.
Education is a main cause of health inequality because it influences health behavior as well as structural conditions that impact health, such as living and working conditions. We examine how different educational groups reacted to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany by looking at health-related behavior - social distancing, increased hygiene, and mask wearing - as well as changes in working conditions - work from home, reduced working hours, and not working - as a structural indicator that can mitigate the risk of infection. More than three quarters of respondents in all educational groups complied with recommended social distancing and hand hygiene behaviors, and differences by education did not exceed ten percentage points. Regarding working conditions, highly educated respondents had a likelihood of over 45 percent to work from home during the pandemic. This number decreased to 17 and 11 percent for those with intermediate and low levels of education, respectively. It seems that education-based inequalities in the risk of infection with COVID-19 do not primarily stem from differences in health behavior but rather from structural causes, that is, inability to practice social distancing at work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据