Community pandemic prevention and control measures and their influence on citizen satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic in China

Abstract

At the forefront of the fight against the pandemic, the community’ s measures and services would have a greater impact than ever before on citizen satisfaction. However, the influence of citizen satisfaction on community pandemic prevention and control measures (CPPCM) during the pandemic is poorly understood. This study aims to investigate the allocation of CPPCM and its impact on CS. The Chinese national data was analyzed for the outcome. (1) Pandemic prevention propaganda (PPP), disinfection (DT), and body temperature tests (BTTs) were the primary measures taken by the Chinese community. (2) The CS for pandemic prevention and control is high, and urban and central Chinese communities express greater satisfaction. (3) The impact of disinfection, body temperature tests, free supplies, and assistance purchasing supplies on CS was greater in rural areas than in urban areas. (4) Regional variations exist in the impact of CS on CPPCM. (5) The number of measures has an inverted U-shaped relationship with citizen satisfaction. This study also suggests that the government should disseminate information about pandemic prevention in a timely manner, provide basic health and medical services, and evaluate the measures taken to avoid the discount effect.

1. Introduction

Adopting a series of prevention and control measures [[1], [2], [3]] has proven effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the community. These measures including ordinary medical prevention measures, living assistance measures, prevention propaganda, and providing assistance with patient registration, transportation, and treatment [[4], [5], [6]]. The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed community-led approaches, which have received widespread support, ultimately resulting in a reduction of COVID-19’s negative effects [7]. To control the pandemic, many countries have adopted community-level prevention and control measures [[8], [9], [10]], community partnership and food delivery in the United States [8], a “local hospital-community” mutual support system in Taiwan [11], and a grid-based community pandemic response network and digital management of Zhejiang, Guangdong, Sichuan, and Hubei provinces [12] are examples.

Citizen satisfaction has been recognized as a crucial aspect of management effectiveness evaluation [[13], [14], [15]]. It is of great importance for political leaders and officials to properly gauge overall citizen satisfaction. Mitigation of problems before they lead to widespread discontent is a key means of ensuring regime stability [16]. The citizen satisfaction of communities performance could influence the communities’ decisions during the crisis response and the crisis learning after the crisis [17], for example, satisfaction may improve compliance with public policies [18]. Communities taking measures and services have a greater impact than ever before on citizen satisfaction during COVID-19 [19]. Therefore, to assess citizen satisfaction with community-level measures for COVID-19 [20,21], which helps the community to adapt and improve [22,23].

Prior studies indicate that community-based prevention and control measures have had different impacts on citizen satisfaction. The main measures taken by communities worldwide are different physical distancing ranging from lockdown, quarantine measures, social distancing, and recommendations to stay-at-home orders. However, the impact on citizen satisfaction of these measures is still controversial. Lockdown management in communities decreased residents being patients and improved residents’ satisfaction with the communities’ work [[24], [25], [26], [27]]. By contrast, many studies have already manifested that the restriction of social distancing may explain the public negative attitude toward the implementation of lockdown management in communities [[28], [29], [30]], longtime enforced home-quarantined revealed the psychosocial strain, which the negative effects on social participation led to lower life satisfaction [29,[31], [32], [33], [34]]. Besides, disinfection measures, living assistance, and medical services in communities is an effective means to prevent the spread of the pandemic, with which people express higher satisfaction [26,35]. However, the existing studies did not verify the allocation of community pandemic prevention and control measures and how citizens respond to community prevention and control during the pandemic. Moreover, community responses were evaluated majorly using case studies and mixed methods, yet the quantitative method was adopted rarely.

Therefore, this study aimed to determine the allocation of community-based measures in different regions, and further investigate the impact of these measures on citizen satisfaction. The study begins by examining the preferred community measures and their impact on citizen satisfaction. Second, the study confirms regional differences in community measures and citizen satisfaction. Third, the number of measures that influence citizen satisfaction is tested. Using the quantitative method, this study provides evidence that citizen satisfaction differs among community-based prevention and control measures, and targeted strategies are proposed to improve community pandemic prevention and control capacity and citizen satisfaction.

2. Data and methods

2.1. Study area

The reasons for selecting China as the study area follow: As the first country to be affected by the pandemic, China controlled the Covid-19 outbreak effectively and timely [6,24], which got recognized and learned by many countries. Communities were at the forefront of the fight against the pandemic, according to the White Paper on Fighting Covid-19: China in Action [36]. Chinese communities have rich experiences in responding to emergencies, with the combinations of community-based measures having the availability of empirical basis [37]. According to the China Statistical Yearbook, China is divided into east, middle, and west regions based on the level of economic development of the region. There exist obvious differences in different regions of China, which help to distinguish the impact from regions.

2.2. Data collection

To determine how community pandemic prevention and control measures impact citizen satisfaction, the author conducted an online survey in China between 22 and April 27, 2020. The survey included the following steps. First, the online question was designed by an international team of more than 20 scholars including front-line researchers at the center of the outbreak in Wuhan and other cities in China, as well as political culture and public health scholars from Canada and Sweden. Using China’s Sixth National Census data, the most authoritative population data available, we determined the respondents’ gender, age, and educational status. The sample distribution is similar to that of the Sixth National Census of China, ensuring that the sample is representative. Third, the online survey was distributed via the universities’ public relations channel for online information regarding COVID-19 in various regions. This questionnaire includes a brief introduction to the background, purpose, procedures, voluntary participation, anonymity and confidentiality, and precautions for completing the questionnaire. The website of each questionnaire is unique, and the same IP address cannot be used to fill out more than one questionnaire. Finally, a total of 18,521 useable responses from individuals residing in 31 provinces or provincial-level administrative regions across China were collected, representing a net response rate of 93.42%. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the sample. Based on this extensive survey, there have been some preliminary findings reported in major news outlets, including NPR [38], The Diplomat [39], and Global Times [40].

Table 1.

Description of survey sample and control variables (N = 18,521).

Variables	Item	Frequency	Percent
Gender	Males	7943	42.9%
	Females	10,578	57.1%
Education	Elementary school or below	1085	5.9%
	Junior high school	2419	13.1%
	High school/Technical school	2372	12.8%
	College degree	2497	13.5%
	Undergraduate	9151	49.4%
	Postgraduate or above	997	5.4%
Party member	Party member	2870	15.5%
	Non-Party member	15,651	84.5%
Marriage	Married	8727	47.1%
	Unmarried	9794	52.9%
Income	2000or blow	2485	13.4%
	2001–5000	5568	30.1%
	5001–8000	409	22.1%
	8001–10000	2605	14.1%
	10,001–20000	2389	12.9%
	20,001–30000	741	4.0%
	30,000 or above	636	3.4%
Status	Lower class	2758	14.9%
	Lower-middle class	6955	37.6%
	Middle class	7652	41.3%
	Upper-middle class	980	5.3%
	Upper class	176	1.0%
Region	Rural	6587	35.6%
	Urban	11,934	64.4%

2.3. Measures

Based on the field research and the publication White Paper on Fighting Covid-19: China in Action, the community pandemic prevention, and control measures were divided into seven categories, pandemic prevention propaganda (PPP), disinfection (DT), body temperature test (BTT), free supplies (FS), assistance in buying supplies (BS), coordinating delivery to the hospital (CH), and psychological consultation (PC) [[41], [42], [43]]. Each respondent was asked if their community had taken these precautions. In addition, we calculated these responses to determine the number of measures taken by the community.

The question “Are you satisfied with the work of the committee/village committee in your community during the pandemic?” assessed the citizen’s satisfaction with pandemic prevention and control measures in their community. Each question was answered using a 4-point Likert scale (1—not at all satisfied, 4—very satisfied) [44,45].

In addition, sociodemographic variables, such as gender, age, education, party identification, marital status, and income were identified as independent factors influencing satisfaction with pandemic prevention measures. For instance, during a pandemic, women are significantly more satisfied with personal preventive measures [46]; younger people are less likely to comply with pandemic prevention measures [31]; and an individual assessment of satisfaction can be influenced by education, income, and economic conditions [47]. Additionally, those who are be religious experienced greater well-being [48].

2.4. Data analysis

While questionnaire scale measures were evaluated using the Cronbach alpha coefficient reliability test, the results indicate that the Cronbach alpha was 0.705%. It is acceptable to demonstrate items used to measure community satisfaction with the COVID-19 pandemic and prevention measures.

To demonstrate the difference between community pandemic prevention and control measures and citizen satisfaction, we first examined the mean values of variables. Then, given that the dependent variable (Citizen satisfaction) are ordinal and categorical, and the assessment of personal subjective attitude [49], we adopted the Ordinal Probit (oprobit) regression model to examine the effects of community pandemic prevention and control measures with satisfaction of the populace. Third, we investigated whether the number of measures had an inverted U-shaped relationship with citizen satisfaction. Finally, we examined the effects of these influencing variables on the satisfaction of citizens between various regions (eastern, central and western China) and virous types (urban and rural) to test the results’ consistency and determine the differences between communities. All data were analyzed using version 16.0 of the statistical software Stata/MP (Stata-Corp LP, Texas City, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Differences in community pandemic prevention and control measures and citizen satisfaction

The mean value of community pandemic prevention and control measures is displayed in Table 2 . From a national perspective, the different pandemic prevention measures provided by the community from high to low are as follows: PPP (0.930), BTT (0.691), DT (0.591), BS (0.312), PC (0.297), CH (0.262), and FS (0.203). Specifically, there are differences in the measures adopted by rural and urban communities. The average values of DT (0.676/0.435), BTT (0.744/0.595), and PC (0.319/0.258) were higher in urban areas compared to rural areas. On the contrary, the average value of CH (0.277/0.254) was higher in rural areas. In addition, there were no obvious differences between the average values of PPP (0.932/0.927), FS (0.208/0.201), and BS (0.315/0.310), with differences of only approximately 0.005. Likewise, the measures adopted by communities in various regions varied. The average values of DT (0.603) and BTT (0.720) in Eastern China were higher than in Central and Western China. The average values of FS (0.294), BS (0.441), CH (0.325), and PC (0.332) in Central areas were higher than in the other regions. Notably, PPP was highest in Western China at 0.934, exceeding the national average of 0.930; however, there was little difference between Eastern (0.933) and Central China (0.924).

Table 2.

The mean values of variables.

Region Variables	Nationwide	Rural	Urban	Eastern	Central	Western
CS	3.067	3.048	3.077	3.066	3.079	3.056
PPP	0.930	0.927	0.932	0.933	0.924	0.934
DT	0.591	0.435	0.676	0.603	0.580	0.591
BTT	0.691	0.595	0.744	0.720	0.696	0.666
FS	0.203	0.208	0.201	0.155	0.294	0.155
BS	0.312	0.315	0.310	0.236	0.441	0.247
CH	0.262	0.277	0.254	0.207	0.325	0.245
PC	0.297	0.258	0.319	0.278	0.332	0.280
NO	0.016	0.018	0.015	0.013	0.017	0.017
Total	3.287	3.016	3.437	3.132	3.593	3.118

Note: CS = citizen satisfaction, PPP = pandemic prevention propaganda, DT = disinfection, BTT = body temperature test, FS = free supplies, BS = assistance in buying supplies, CH = coordinating delivery to the hospital, PC = psychological consultation, NO = no services.

As shown in Table 2, overall citizen satisfaction with community pandemic prevention work varied by community type and region. In particular, the average level of citizen satisfaction with community pandemic prevention work was greater in urban areas (3.077) than in rural areas (3.048). Compared with Eastern (3.066) and Western (3.056) China, communities in Central China (3.079) had the highest average level of citizen satisfaction with community pandemic prevention work, which was also higher than the national level (3.067).

3.2. Overall effect and regional difference

The results of model 1 indicate that each of the seven pandemic prevention and control measures significantly affected citizen satisfaction (see Appendix A). The degree of impact of different community pandemic prevention measures on citizens’ satisfaction is as follows: DT (0.288), PPP (0.284), BTT (0.224), FS (0.200), CH (0.186), PC (0.179), and BS (0.168). The effect of DT on citizen satisfaction was the greatest, while the effect of BS was the least. Communist Party members will take the initiative to engage in pandemic prevention work and will be able to more accurately and objectively assess the pandemic prevention behaviors of the community. People who were married were more satisfied with the measures of their communities. However, participants with greater levels of education, higher incomes, and higher family economic status were more likely to respond negatively to the community measures.

Model 2 and model 3 demonstrate that different pandemic prevention measures had different effects on residents’ satisfaction in urban and rural communities and that the effect of each measure on citizen satisfaction varied between urban and rural communities. The impact on citizen satisfaction of DT (0.312/0.281), BTT (0.245/0.208), and FS (0.196/0.194) in model 2 is higher than in model 3. Model 2 has a lower impact of PPP (0.277/0.297), BS (0.161/0.174), CH (0.180/0.183), and PC (0.182/0.183) than model 3.

Overall, the seven types of pandemic prevention measures had a positive and significant effect on citizen satisfaction in models 4, 5, and 6. Nevertheless, the coefficient levels for the seven types of pandemic prevention measures varied, indicating that there are indeed status differences. Noticeably, the results of PPP had the highest significant impact on citizen satisfaction in model 4 (0.362), which was higher than model 5 (0.239) and model 6 (0.263). Moreover, the influence of DT (0.327) and FS (0.297) on citizen satisfaction was greater in model 4 than in models 5 and 6. Notably, the impact of BTT (0.143), CH (0.160), and PC (0.159) on citizen satisfaction in model 4 was less than in models 5 and 6.

CH (0.215) and PC (0.204) showed the most improvement in residents’ satisfaction in model 5. In model 5, PPP (0.239), FS (0.154), and BS (0.148) had a smaller impact on citizen satisfaction than in models 4 and 6. Model 6 had the greatest impact of BTT (0.266) on citizen satisfaction. In model 6, BTT (0.266) and DT (0.266) had the same effect. The differences in the impact of FS between the three models were considerable, and the degree of difference was as high as 0.143.

The number of pandemic prevention measures adopted by communities affected the satisfaction of the populace. Furthermore, there were evident differences between China's various community types and regions. Appendix B summarizes the results. The results indicate that the total number of pandemic prevention measures implemented by the community had a significant positive effect on citizen satisfaction: when the total number increased by 1%, citizen satisfaction with community pandemic prevention work increased by 0.208%. Meanwhile, the impact of the total quantity of pandemic prevention measures on citizens' satisfaction in model 9 (0.215) was higher than in model 11 (0.204). This indicates that the increase in total quantity significantly improves the satisfaction of citizens living in rural areas, but has a lesser effect on those living in urban areas. The highest coefficient level of the total quantity of citizen satisfaction was found in model 13 (0.218), with the second and third-highest-scoring models being model 17 (0.210) and model 15 (0.205), respectively, in Western and Central China. This indicates that the increase in total quantity was reported to increase the satisfaction level of citizens in the Eastern region the most.

To determine whether there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the number of community pandemic prevention measures (total) and citizen satisfaction, the model was controlled for the square of total satisfaction. The results of models 8, 12, 16, and 18 indicate that the number of measures has an inverted U-shaped relationship with the level of citizen satisfaction.

4. Discussion

Using data from a Chinese national survey, this article tried to determine the allocation of community-based measures in different regions, and whether and how these measures are related to citizen satisfaction. The results generally indicate that the allocation of community-based measures differs among regions, the effect of these measures on citizen satisfaction is different, and the number of measures has an inverted U-shaped relationship with citizen satisfaction.

4.1. China’s community pandemic prevention and control experience

The research of experience of China communities response to Covid-19 was also showed practical implications for future public emergency management, but there is no national-level comparison of pandemic prevention measures. Most works only examine pandemic prevention in one or two regions [50]. At the national level, these comparisons do not analyze differences in pandemic prevention measures based on spatial divisions and community types [51]. This study described the allocation of community pandemic prevention and control measures, the distinction between urban and rural communities, and the disparities between Eastern China, Central China, and Western China. The findings showed that PPP, DT, BTT, FS, CH, PC, and BS are the fundamental measures adopted by communities, while there exist differences in adopted various measures by communities.

As for PPP, the most adopted measures, plays different roles in different ways. First, the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the acquisition of relevant pandemic prevention knowledge through PPP. This is because previous research has demonstrated that epidemiological knowledge is indispensable for pandemic prevention [52]. Second, CPPCM, which is an essential component of ideal risk communication, was able to create a consensus among residents, promote citizen policy compliance, and increase citizen cooperation during COVID-19 [53]. Regarding citizen compliance and collective cooperation in emergencies, it is impossible to control a pandemic [54] without citizen compliance and voluntary cooperation [55], such as maintaining social distance and receiving a vaccination. Additionally, PPP may require social forces to participate in pandemic prevention actions to form a type of collaborative governance. Zhejiang Province had the best record in China’s fight against the COVID-19 pandemic [56] due to comprehensive measures adopted by community-based organizations. Finally, against the lock-off management, communities-based played important mediating roles in citizens and local governments [57], and PPP became major paths for obtaining official information, which can get the latest situation and relief public anxiety [20].

The fundamental medical measures: BBT and DT showed that there were significant differences in adopting pandemic prevention measures between urban and rural areas based on the economic level and intensity. More urban areas adopted BTT and DT. Some health care services are unavailable in rural areas, which explains why treatment varies between urban and rural areas [58]. In addition, the density of cities and the unequal distribution of resources increase the risk of transmission, necessitating the implementation of additional pandemic prevention measures [50]. Nanjing, a city with a large population, has experienced multiple waves of the virus and has been forced to take additional measures to control it [59]. Meanwhile, the success of Shenzhen confirmed this [60].

The community in Central China had the highest level of adoption of FS, BS, and CH，this condition which may be explained by the severity of the pandemic. There were 5433 confirmed cases in East China, 39,740 confirmed cases in Central China, and 15,408 confirmed cases in West China When the questionnaire was distributed. In Beijing, where the infection rate was less than 1%, the entire market continued to operate, and the free movement of residents rarely necessitated the provision of these services by the community [51]. However, the entire area of Wuhan was under lockdown, and the market was stagnant. All residents were required to remain at home and limit social interaction. Therefore, it is indispensable for communities to provide living assistance including FS and BS to satisfy public daily life needs. In regions experiencing a severe pandemic where have more patients, communities must take more CH measures to prevent more people from getting infected and treat the patient treated in time. Compared with the areas with severe pandemics, the less severely those only need to follow precautions personal distancing and wearing masks, and other basic life functions are basic normal.

The findings indicated that multiple (more than three) pandemic prevention measures at the community-level were widespread. Moreover, there existed various diverse types of community-based pandemic prevention measures, which primarily consisted of public health measures and non-public health measures. The community action against pandemic can go back to the 2003 SARS in China. The previous crisis has accumulated practical experience for China to effectively control the Covid-19, and it had proved to essential to control the spread of the pandemic from multiple perspectives [61]. In addition, policy mixes of China government functioned in controlling the pandemic, as the fundamental unit, communities act as an agent to took various actions. Therefore, in the early stage of COVID-19, in China’s efforts to control the pandemic’s spread, the community became an important subject of policy implementation, representing to a certain extent the state’s intervention in crisis management [62]. The severity of Covid-19 and management measures of government have substantial impact on public, which is necessary to response timely by multiple ways to various problem and needs of public. The differences of pandemic severity in different regions and problems arising from lockdown management, such as mental problem [48], will prompt community to have multiple roles in taking measures and providing services [63]. When facing limited health resources in crisis management, to achieve a balance between ethical issues and clinical management, pandemic prevention measures must be taken [64].

4.2. Possible explanations for the impact of community pandemic prevention and control measures on citizen satisfaction

Possible explanations for the positive impact of PPP on citizen satisfaction include the following: It is advantageous for the government, residents, and society to pay attention to relevant pandemic information to respond, which necessitates common compliance [65]. At that time, citizen awareness of unknown viruses was relatively low [62]. The social cognitive theory explains the need for social learning in a changing environment, enhancing individuals’ understanding of epidemiological expertise and facilitating behavioral change [66]. Communities play an upload-down role in controlling the spread of the pandemic during a pandemic [67]. Consequently, PPP had the greatest influence on residents’ satisfaction.

Due to the differences in economic levels, medical resources in rural areas are relatively scarce [58], the availability of resources leads to residents’ greater satisfaction with ordinary medical services: DT and BTT,in rural areas than in urban areas. The situation is more severe in the central region, where the virus spreads most easily, so it is even more important to relocate and isolate confirmed patients before sending them to the hospital. Therefore, DT and BTT pandemic prevention measures had the least impact on public satisfaction in the central region. For instance, Wuhan achieved remarkable results in the fight against the pandemic. Nonetheless, a lack of coordinated medical delivery measures was also revealed, which increased the risk of transmission [6]. Besides, the public health crisis context may explain ordinary medical services have higher satisfaction with the public than other services in overall results [68].

FS and BS are living assistance pandemic prevention measures that have played a crucial role during the advent of the pandemic. There are multiple explanations for this condition. To control the spread of the pandemic, China has implemented strict lockdown measures that restrict population movements. For areas where the pandemic is not severe, such as in Beijing [69], these two community-provided pandemic prevention measures can meet the basic needs of residents and control the pandemic’s spread. Therefore, communities that are not severely affected by the pandemic have a greater impact on the satisfaction of their citizens through the provision of FS. The goal of the theory of planned behavior is to modify behavior to increase executive performance [70]. As the most severely affected region in Wuhan, basic non-medical pandemic prevention measures cannot control the spread of the pandemic or resolve public health issues [71]. Therefore, the community-provided FS pandemic prevention measures cannot achieve the practical application effectiveness required by the theory of health behavior [65]. Consequently, implementing more FS in areas with severe pandemics did not increase citizen satisfaction with community pandemic prevention measures. In rural communities, basic living conditions are relatively poor and determined by economic conditions [72], so the community taking BS has a greater impact on rural areas.

PC is a professional medical service measure to deal with mental problem. During COVID-19, many countries have conducted research on public mental health [73]. Multiple pandemic outbreaks have had an impact on mental health compared to pre-pandemic levels, especially during this time of COVID-19, when the impact of lockdown measures has significantly increased [74]. The psychological impact of strict lockdown measures in severe pandemic areas made PC more impactful in these high-demand areas than in less severe pandemic areas [75]. As a result, residents in the central region were more satisfied than those in other regions, as PC was more prevalent in the central region than in other regions. This demonstrates that the specific measures implemented during the outbreak of a public crisis are consistent with the behavior change effectiveness of the theory of planned behavior [65]. In addition, China’s urban areas are relatively densely populated, which means that once a pandemic breaks out, it will spread much more rapidly. The social-ecological system model emphasizes the positive influence of interpersonal relationships on healthy behaviors [65], and explains that urban residents are more prone to psychological problems than rural residents with acquaintance relationships [76]. This also illustrated that PC had a higher impact on residents in urban than in rural.

Psychological problems in public health require the expertise of the professional medical staff. This requires both public health resources and the assistance of a team of professionals [77]. Currently, the supply of public health and mental health services in China’s urban areas is relatively limited, and the service capacity must be significantly increased [75]. Moreover, addressing these issues in rural areas with poor economic conditions is even more difficult [68,78]. This also explains why PC had a negligible effect on citizen satisfaction across all analyses.

The extent of pandemic severity may explain the differences in U-shaped relationship between residents’ satisfaction and the number of pandemic prevention measures in different regions. During the early stage, the situation of central region pandemic was not severe, concentrating on preventing the pandemic into the local by restricting and monitoring cases. Therefore, some of the community-based measures are not available in less severe areas. For example, the application difference of coordinating delivery to a hospital is different between Wuhan and Beijing [51]. Economic level and public medical conditions may illustrate that there was no U-shaped relationship between the number of measures and satisfaction in rural areas compared with urban. Inadequate resources will make it difficult to provide comprehensive measures [79]. While its problem is not the oversupply of services but the basic provision of measures in rural [80].

4.3. Practical implications

The local government should strictly control the dissemination of information and develop an official information platform that integrates the government and the community. To timely disseminate pandemic prevention information to the community, while simultaneously enhancing the management of information dissemination and establishing a pandemic management information system for the community. As much as possible, communities must act swiftly and release official information in a timely manner to prevent the appearance and spread of false information. In response to public crisis management, the government should develop community organizations, strengthen citizens’ sense of community, and enhance the effectiveness of community governance. This requires the government to give community-based organizations the authority to provide public services, which based on coproduction and the role community-based organizations functions in every stage of disaster response.

Meanwhile, this requires the government to provide basic health and medical services, especially in areas with poor economic conditions, such as rural areas. Additionally, to increase the quality of medical education, strengthen medical service training, and cultivate medical professionals at the grassroots level. Third, local governments should provide sufficient emergency management services based on specific realities, such as ensuring that there are sufficient reserves of daily necessities in multiple regions, particularly in areas experiencing severe pandemics, which is conducive to the development of an effective emergency response. Finally, considering the inverted U-shaped relationship between the number of measures and citizen satisfaction, it is necessary to evaluate the measures to avoid a discounting effect resulting from the frequent improvement of pandemic prevention and control measures. Moreover, targeted and specific measures should be taken flexibly according to the different pandemic situations faced by different regions, to avoid waste of resources and inefficiency,

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the allocation of community pandemic prevention and control measures and their impact on citizen satisfaction using a national survey. The results indicate that PPP, BTT, and DT were the primary measures implemented by the Chinese community, and there were also variations in the allocation of community pandemic prevention and control measures across different area types and regions. All measures lead to better citizen satisfaction, and the number of measures has an inverted U-shaped relationship with citizen satisfaction. This study may serve as a basis for examining potential pathways to effective community pandemic prevention in other countries and regions.

This study is also limited in some ways due to the data collection and the variable measurement. First, this study employs a non-probability sample to collect sufficient and comprehensive data. However, this can result in biased estimates. Second, the data is exclusive to China, so any extrapolation of the findings to other countries must consider the country’s specific situation. Third, because key variables could only be accurately measured by questionnaires during the earliest stage of the pandemic, the results may only be applicable to the period under study. Future research will attempt to measure community pandemic prevention measures using methods other than questionnaire surveys, such as text analysis based on policy text, which may also aid in extending the study beyond the initial phase of the pandemic. Fourth, the evaluation of citizen satisfaction was limited to a single item. To reduce measurement error in future studies, additional relevant variables will be utilized. Future research will attempt to determine the impact of measures on citizen satisfaction at various stages of the pandemic, which may help to extend the scope of the study beyond the initial phase. Finally, the pandemic and prevention measures in this study are common and universal, not including all measures adopted during the pandemic. Further investigation of all measures with different categories helps to develop community-based comprehensive ability.

6. Ethics statement

The Ethics Committee of the School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University has reviewed this study and concluded that it meets the Committee's requirements. Informed consent was obtained from the study participants, and the guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki were followed.

Funding

This work was supported by The Humanities and Social Science Middle-Aged and Young Teachers’ Basic Ability Promotion Project of Guangxi (2020QGRW020), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2022M721548), and The Youth Fund Project of National Social Science Fund of China Program (NSSFC) (22CZZ039).

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.