Page 49 - GHES-1-1

Global Health Econ Sustain Resilience, income, artists, COVID-19

and their lower 95% CI for all these items were above 2.5 higher resilience during the pandemic was related to
(thus closer to “true nearly all the time”). increased productivity, stimulated commitment, and a
Table 5 presents the means for the composite variables. cumulative stimulating impact in art activities, as well as
Values exceeding 2.5 in the last column suggest that their inversely related to inhibiting commitment and inhibiting
productivity in art activities was increased, new artistic ways social connection.
and modalities were deployed, and artists experienced both 3.5. Financial matters and resilience
stimulated and inhibited impacts on their commitment to
and social connections in art activities. The scores for these Participants’ average gross monthly income (before tax)
variables did not show statistically significant differences for the preceding 6 months during the pandemic in 2020
based on gender, art fields, art domains of activity, years was compared with their income during 2019. A cross
since obtaining a first tertiary qualification in an art table of frequencies is shown in Table 8, capturing a
discipline, employment status, or income before or during statistically significant reduction in income (Fisher’s
the pandemic. exact test = 98.193; p < 0.001).
The mean scores for the two items regarding the
3.4. Resilience and art activities experienced impact on financial matters were as
The relationship of resilience with art activities is presented follows: for “Financial concerns due to the pandemic
in Table 6 (resilience before the pandemic) and Table 7 have made me apprehensive in doing art activities,”
(resilience during the pandemic). As shown in Table 6, the mean was 2.99 (SD = 1.33; 95% CI = 2.71 – 3.26);
findings of statistical significance for resilience before and for “Have been using art in new ways to address
the pandemic were limited to inhibiting impacts rather financial pressures,” the mean was 2.46 (SD = 1.23; 95%
than stimulating impacts on art activities. Thereby, lower CI = 2.22 – 2.72).
resilience scores were associated with inhibiting social A regression analysis revealed that resilience during
connection and cumulative inhibiting impact on art and before the pandemic had seemingly nothing to do
activities. with using art in new ways to address financial pressures
These associations were also seen during the pandemic (Table 9), whereas it was inversely related to participants
(see Table 7), but with stronger relationships as reflected experiencing apprehension in doing art activities due to
in the standardized regression coefficients (β-values) that financial concerns. This apprehension was statistically
were more than double the values before the pandemic. more evident in self-employed than employed participants
While no statistical relationships were seen between (mean difference = −0.093; 95% CI = −1.60 – −0.26;
resilience before the pandemic and stimulating impacts, p = 0.003).

Table 5. Means of the composite impacts of the COVID pandemic on art activities
Composite Impact No of Mean (standard Lower 95% Higher 95% Mean/no
items deviation) confidence interval confidence interval of items
Productivity 4 10.62 (4.54) 9.74 11.53 2.66
New artistic ways and modalities 3 9.39 (2.93) 8.79 9.97 3.13
Commitment
Stimulating commitment 5 14.53 (5.02) 13.63 15.54 2.91
Inhibiting commitment 4 12.0 (3.99) 11.19 12.77 3.0
Resultant commitment 9 2.53 (7.95) 1.01 4.08 NA*
Social connection
Stimulating social connection 5 15.08 (4.24) 14.25 15.88 3.02
Inhibiting social connection 3 9.72 (3.13) 9.12 10.31 3.24
Resultant social connection 8 5.36 (5.38) 4.33 6.42 NA*
Cumulative impact
Cumulative stimulating impact 18 52.07 (13.52) 49.58 54.71 3.0
Cumulative inhibiting impact 8 24.71 (7.20) 23.29 26.09 3.09
Cumulative resultant impact 26 27.36 (17.41) 24.09 30.90 NA*
Note: *NA: Not applicable, as these rows are derived from the preceding two rows.

Volume 1 Issue 1 (2023) 6 https://doi.org/10.36922/ghes.0911