SNAP
NMIMS
NMAT

COVID 19 study by MICA Faculty Prof. Shaphali Gupta

COVID 19 study by MICA Faculty Prof. Shaphali Gupta

STUDY NAME: 
Prevention vs. Promotion-Focus Regulatory Efforts on the Disease Incidence  and Mortality of COVID-19: A Multinational Diffusion Study using Functional  Data Analysis 


JOURNAL NAME: Journal of International Marketing, American Marketing  Association Journal 


AUTHORS: V Kumar (Customer engagement Expert, USA), Ashish Sood (Associate  Professor of Marketing, University of California Riverside), Shaphali Gupta (MICA), Nitish Sood (Pursuing a Doctorate of Medicine (MD) at Medical College of Georgia,  Augusta, GA.) 


1. In one to two sentences, explain the problem addressed in this article: 
The unexpected spread of COVID-19 globally resulted in higher disease incidence and  mortality in some countries more than others. This study attempts to explain why  these differences occurred; and whether the magnitude of such a large scale impact  could have been curtailed through non-pharmaceutical interventions such as  restriction of gatherings, establishment closures, economic & health relief measures,  and public information campaigns from different government bodies.  


2. Write a synopsis of approximately 300-400 words that summarizes the key  insights in your article. If applicable, include a real-life scenario or  anecdote as an example that illustrates the issue. 
The timing, severity and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic varied substantially across  countries and also across regions within a country. This raises the question of why  some countries suffered a higher number of COVID-19 infections & mortalities  than others did despite sharing similar characteristics. In the absence of a clear and  proven medical treatment to treat infections, countries adopted various  non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) to contain disease incidence and mortality in  varying measures.  


These NPIs supported by the Regulatory Focus Theory, included limits on private  gatherings, restrictions on internal movement, shelter-in-place orders, closing  of schools, universities, and non-essential businesses. 


Infection was curtailed by limiting public transportation, international travel, and  imposing additional screening and quarantine requirements. Additional resources  were released to enhance health expenditure and to meet higher demand for  physicians and hospital beds. Various relief efforts were initiated including freezing  financial obligations, stopping loan repayments, banning evictions, releasing direct  cash payments and running public information campaigns. Digital tools like location based proximity tracing and data integration to support surveillance, testing, contact 
tracing, and strict quarantine were provided. Countries varied significantly in both the  extent and timing of implementing these NPIs.

 
We assembled a unique and comprehensive dataset on disease incidence and  mortality, country characteristics, and NPIs across 70 countries. We gathered  information across countries on the policies perceived to be related to prevention focused and promotion-focused NPIs and the susceptibility to COVID-19. We use  functional clustering to cluster countries across diverse geographic, demographic or  economic characteristics with similar patterns of disease incidence and mortality.  Countries in Cluster 1 with consistently low levels of disease incidence had the highest  levels of both prevention- and promotion-focused NPIs and low levels of susceptibility.  In contrast, countries in Cluster 5 with high levels of disease incidence from earliest  time had moderate levels of prevention- and promotion-focused NPIs and  susceptibility.  


We employ functional regression to investigate the impact of NPIs on disease  incidence. On the whole, prevention-focused activity -- closures, was more effective  than prevention-focused activity -- containment, in controlling disease incidence.  However, promotion-focused relief measures were more effective than prevention focused activity -- containment, in controlling disease incidence. Moreover, the  susceptibility towards the disease moderated the impact of NPIs on mortality. 
Our simulations yield insights into relative efficacy of these NPIs and help  policymakers formulate pandemic response strategies to learn across clusters and co create appropriate policies. Going forward, this study can provide directions to the  policymakers to have a combination of preventive and promotion interventions to  mitigate disease spread and mortality at a country level. 


3. Please condense your above summary into a bulleted list of 2–3  practitioner takeaways: 

  • This study can help public policy officials cluster countries based on the  similarity of the disease spread, across diverse geographic, demographic or  economic characteristics; and to explore how a reallocation of resources  between prevention- and promotion-focused interventions may influence  disease incidence and mortality. 
  • Public policy officials can predict the disease incidence in a country by  integrating information from (a) past patterns of disease incidence in that  country, (b) past patterns of disease incidence in other countries, and (c)  knowledge of the promotion/prevention based interventions, and other unique  characteristics of that country. 

4. In one to two sentences, describe how marketers and managers would  use this research: 
This is the first study, to our knowledge, to investigate the relative effectiveness of  diverse non-pharmaceutical interventions in mitigating disease incidence and  mortality, and if learnings from one country could help the formulation of pandemic  response strategies in other countries. The learnings from this global study serve to  guide the development of an evidence-based countrywide pandemic response and  provide insights on the diffusion patterns of the spread of a disease.

COVID 19 Study

Stay informed, Stay ahead and Stay inspired with MBA Rendezvous