How can social psychology contribute to understanding and managing pandemics? A Delphi study for identifying research priorities
Creators: name: Khan, Sammyh
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
subject: Social Psychology
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology
subject: COVID-19
subject: Delphi Method
subject: Social Psychology

description: BACKGROUND Pandemics have sporadically occurred over the course of human history and have varied in their impact on the human population. For example, the recent 2009 H1N1 swine flu infected approximately 1.4 billion people across the globe and killed between 151,700 and 575,400 people (Centers for Disease Protection and Control (CDPC)), n.d.). Moreover, the most severe pandemic in recent history that infected one third of the world population – which also involved the H1N1 virus – occurred in 1918 and resulted in the death of approximately 50 million people (CDPC, n.d.). The current COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, with hundreds to thousands of deaths daily, and it is highly unlikely going to be the last pandemic to emerge. Evidently, pandemics raise scientific challenges, cause major human suffering, and impose significant economic damage (The World Health Organization (WHO), 2007, 2020), requiring a multidisciplinary approach to devise holistic interventions. Health authorities actively adopt a variety of measures found to be effective in controlling pandemics, including issuing facts and precautionary measures (e.g., limiting mobility and promoting social distancing and good respiratory etiquette, such as coughing into a tissue) (Bell, 2004; Dorfan &amp; Woody, 2011; Yang &amp; Chu, 2018). Most of the relevant behaviours and perceptions are social in nature and are implicated by social factors. For example, people are more likely to be influenced by and accept advice from people they trust (Koenig, Clément, &amp; Harris, 2004; Sniezek &amp; Van Swol, 2001; Van Swol, 2011). Social psychology as a discipline should therefore be in a good position to contribute to tackling the challenges posed by pandemics; however, little (if any) research currently exists to provide guidance about the relevance and priorities for the discipline for understanding and managing pandemics. To this end, this Delphi study will recruit a panel of experts whom will provide their expert opinion on the relevance of social psychological theory and research for understanding and managing pandemics and identifying and reaching consensus (if possible) about research priorities (for the field of social psychology). The study therefore effectively employs a consolidated approach to identifying research priorities for social psychology. The aim of this study is to garner expert opinion on: (1) how social psychological theory and/or research can contribute to inform knowledge and management of pandemics; (2) what research topics social psychology/social psychologists should prioritise to (further) inform knowledge and management of pandemics; and (3) what strategies social psychology/social psychologists should implement to conduct research that will (further) inform knowledge and management of pandemics. METHODS Design A modified e-Delphi method will be employed (for an overview, e.g., see Hsu &amp; Sandford, 2007; Keeney, Hasson, &amp; McKenna, 2011). The method involves consulting a panel of experts (panel members) about their views on a topic, in at least two survey rounds (up to three sequential rounds will be used in this study), to measure opinions and/or establish whether consensus is possible. Each round is refined based on the results from the previous round. The method it is typically used for topics wherein there is little or no existing knowledge or empirical evidence to inform theory, policy, and practice. The responses to the open-ended questions will be collated and categorised into themes (items), through the use of content analysis, and become part of the survey tool used for subsequent Delphi rounds. Panel members will rate their level of agreement with each close-ended question on 5-point Likert-type scales. Descriptive data analyses of the panel members’ responses to the close-ended questions will be employed (i.e., measures of central tendency and level of dispersion). Consensus will be deemed to have been achieved if at least 70% of the panel members score either strongly disagree/disagree or agree/strongly agree on an item. Items that achieve consensus in a round will not be included in subsequent rounds. In the second and (possibly) third round, panel members will receive the panel’s previous responses and be asked to re-evaluate their original responses to items for which consensus was not achieved. Participants Panel members will comprise (full) professors of psychology who categorise themselves as social psychologists and/or one of their main areas of expertise as situated in the field of social psychology. This will be ascertained through the identification of participants (see below) and through the following yes/no answer questions to be included in the first survey round: (1) Are you a (full) professor in psychology?; (2) Do you categorise yourself as a social psychologist and/or does one of your main areas of expertise lie in the field of social psychology? No exclusion criteria regarding age, gender or location will be applied. Potential panel members have primarily been identified based on their occupation of leadership roles on editorial boards of prominent social psychology journals and executive committees of prominent social psychology societies/associations. Efforts have been made to identify experts beyond the West (i.e., USA and Europe) to include a diverse panel of experts based in other continents of the world. Potential panel members will be invited to take part in the study via e-mail. E-mail addresses will be obtained through internet searches or by requesting the contact details from the respective potential panel member’s university affiliations. Panel members who decline participation will be asked to suggest a colleague(s) with similar background to replace them. Both purposive and snowball sampling will therefore be employed. Approximately 150-200 potential panel members will be sent the invitation to partake in the study. However, due to the well-known non-response and attrition rates associated with Delphi studies, it is not possible to provide a reliable indication of how many will respond to the e-mail (e.g., Hsu &amp; Sandford, 2007). Materials and Data Analysis Two close-ended and three open-ended questions that have been developed for the purposes of this study will be employed in the first Delphi round. Panel members will rate their level of agreement with each close-ended question on 5-point Likert-type scales (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree). The close-ended questions are as follows: (1) Social psychological theory and/or research can make a significant contribution to knowledge about pandemics; and (2) Social psychological theory and/or research can have a significant impact on how pandemics are managed. The open-ended questions are as follows: (1) How can social psychological theory and/or research contribute to inform knowledge and management of pandemics?; (2) What research topics should social psychology/social psychologists prioritise to (further) inform knowledge and management of pandemics?; and (3) What strategies should social psychology/social psychologists implement to conduct research that will (further) inform knowledge and management of pandemics? The responses to the open-ended questions will be collated and categorised into themes (items), through the use of content analysis, and become part of the survey tool used for subsequent Delphi rounds. Descriptive data analyses of the panel members’ responses to the close-ended questions will be employed (i.e., measures of central tendency and level of dispersion). Consensus will be deemed to have been achieved if at least 70% of the panel members score either strongly disagree/disagree or agree/strongly agree on an item. Items that achieve consensus in a round will not be included in subsequent rounds. In the second and (possibly) third round, panel members will receive the panel’s previous responses and be asked to re-evaluate their original responses to items for which consensus was not achieved. Procedure Potential panel members will be invited to partake in the study via e-mail. This e-mail will include an explanatory statement about the study, a link to the first survey round (hosted on the survey platform www.qualtrics.com), and relevant time-frames. The potential panel members will also be informed that £10 will be donated to the WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund for each expert panel member that completes all rounds of the Delphi. Those who decline participation will be encouraged to recommend a colleague(s) with the appropriate expertise to replace them. Potential panel members will be given ten days to complete the first survey round – a reminder e-mail will be sent after four and seven days; potential panel member who do not respond before the deadline will not be invited to any further rounds of the study. The first survey will first present panel members with an information sheet outlining what participants will be asked to do, what the study concerns, how long it typically takes to complete the study, what will happen to their data, and points of contact. They will be informed that participation is voluntary and quasi-anonymous; however, panel members can choose to have their name included in the supplementary materials of any presentations/reports of the study findings (i.e., to communicate the expertise of the panel members). Likewise, the information sheet emphasises that the data the participants submit may be used for academic dissemination (e.g., conference presentations and publications). Additionally, participants are informed of their right to withdraw from the study, how they can do this, and what will happen to their data if they choose to do this. Next, potential panel members will be presented a consent form to complete if they wish to participate. They will subsequently be asked to provide demographic data (e.g., their name, age, gender, country of residence, year PhD was obtained, area(s) of expertise, and e-mail address). The remainder of the survey contains the close-ended and open-ended questions, brief instructions on how to complete the survey and what will happen after completion (i.e., that another round (or summary of the final results if last round) will be sent approximately five to ten days after the preceding round terminated to allow the researcher to analyse and collate the data). The subsequent survey rounds will also contain this information. The same procedure as for the first round will adopted for the second and (possibly) third round, with some modifications. That is, no information sheet or consent form will be included in these rounds (as only panel members who provided their informed consent and completed the first round will be included) and the study items to be included are wholly dependent on the outcome of preceding rounds. As such, in the second and (possibly) third round, panel members will receive an e-mail containing a link to the next survey in which they will be asked to review the items summarised by the researchers based on the responses in the preceding round; they will be asked to re-evaluate their original responses in light of the results from the previous round. Open-ended questions in rounds two and (possibly) three will also ask panel members to provide recommendations regarding any additions, clarifications, alterations, and/or deletions of items and for any other comments/suggestions. A summary of each round will be fed back to the panel members. The only demographic data participants will be asked to provide in the second and (possibly) third round pertain to their name and e-mail address, to allow the researchers to track their responses. The survey can be completed over several sessions to allow panel members to review their answers before final submission of responses.