Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Thai population: Delineating the effects of the pandemic and policy measures

Nongyao Kasatpibal; Nongkran Viseskul; Akarapong Untong; Kwaunpanomporn Thummathai; Kampong Kamnon; Srisakul Sangkampang; Rusila Tokilay; Srisuda Assawapalanggool; Anucha Apisarnthanarak

doi:10.1017/ash.2023.523

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Thai population: Delineating the effects of the pandemic and policy measures

Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol. 2023 Dec 18;3(1):e241. doi: 10.1017/ash.2023.523. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Division of Nursing Science, Faculty of Nursing, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
² Epidemiology Research Center of Infectious Disease (ERCID), Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
³ School of Tourism Development, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
⁴ Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
⁵ Lumthamenchai Hospital, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
⁶ Yala Provincial Public Health Office, Yala, Thailand.
⁷ Infection Control Section, Mae Sot Hospital, Thailand.
⁸ Division of Infectious Diseases, Thammasat University Hospital, Pratumthani, Thailand.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and policy measures and delineate the impact of each on a cohort of Thai citizens.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 2,500 Thai people from October 2020 to January 2021. A questionnaire collecting demographic information and other data was sent to eligible subjects.

Results: Overall, 51.6% and 49.5% of participants felt the impacts of COVID-19 and policy measures at the highest level, respectively. The study demonstrated that the weighted effect of the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak was statistically (p < .001) greater than that of policy measures on family (0.664 vs 0.618), education (0.562 vs 0.557), and the economy (0.643 vs 0.572). The weighted effect of the impact of policy measures was statistically (p < .001) greater than that of the COVID-19 pandemic on people's daily activities (0.675 vs 0.651), cultural/traditional or community way of life (0.769 vs 0.736), access to healthcare services and infection prevention supplies (0.410 vs 0.390), and mental health (0.625 vs 0.584).

Conclusions: About half of the participants had a high level of impact from both the COVID-19 pandemic and policy measures. The results of this study suggest that policy measures need to be judged with caution, and the government should provide more comprehensive support to reduce the impact on people's lives.