As a result of analyzing the data to investigate the subjective experience of the participants’ self-quarantine, four domains were found; Lifestyle, Physical health, Psychological experience, and Reflection. Next, exploring the multiple layers of contextual influences on the subjective experiences of quarantine in South Korea revealed four domains with 13 categories, (a) personality and belief in Within-individual domain, (b) quarantine space, personal relationship, coresident, student status, and employment status in Microsystem, (c) Korea’s quarantine policy, maintenance, resources, and abroad’s preventive measure against COVID in Exosystem, and (d) stigma and social responsibility in Macrosystem. Frequency labels, General, Typical, and Variant, are based on a total of 17 cases. General describes 16 or 17 cases, Typical describes 9 to 15 cases, and Variant describes 8 or less cases.
Subjective Experience of Self-Quarantine
The consensus meaning of four domains of Korean participants’ subjective experience of quarantine is as follows. Lifestyle refers to the activities and behaviors that the participants engaged in as a result of, and during, quarantine. Physical health refers to the phenomenon that manifested itself in the physical body as a result of, and during, quarantine. Psychological experience encompasses various internal experiences that arose within the participants, and Reflection presents the participants’ afterthoughts of quarantine (Table 2).
Table 2 Subjective Experience
Domain
|
Category
|
Frequency
|
Lifestyle
|
Changed lifestyle because of quarantine
|
11/Typical
|
|
Continued pre-quarantine life
|
16/General
|
|
Lasting effect of quarantine
|
5/Variant
|
Physical health
|
|
10/Typical
|
Psychological experience
|
Discomfort
|
13/Typical
|
|
Infection Anxiety
|
6/Variant
|
|
Accepting
|
14/Typical
|
|
Satisfying
|
6/Variant
|
|
Gratitude
|
8/Typical
|
Reflection
|
Suggestion
|
7/Variant
|
|
Change of Perspective
|
4/Variant
|
Lifestyle
The domain Lifestyle consisted of three different core ideas: changed lifestyle because of quarantine, continued pre-quarantine life, lasting effect of quarantine. Of the 17 participants, 11 reported that strictly following the quarantine regulations typically changed their lifestyles. The more strictly a participant followed the rules, the greater was the change in one’s lifestyle. One participant used the kitchen only in the middle of the night, when “no one else would be awake”, to minimize contact with the family members. Another participant had to “hand-wash the laundry every morning” to not use the same washing machine as the family.
On the other hand, not all participants experienced changes in lifestyle due to quarantine. In fact, participants generally continued their pre-quarantine lives without detecting much quarantine-specific differences. They continued their schoolwork and work through online mediums. Some participants continued their pre-quarantine lives, but with more emphasis on recharging over responsibility. For example, they “rested and got enough sleep”, “focused on my hobby like making Gundam figures and puzzles. Time flies when I play with these things. So I just did those things freely without much concern”.
Regardless of the degree of changes in lifestyle, quarantine had variantly lasting effects on some participants’ post-quarantine lives. Those who felt unprecedentedly constrained and trapped during quarantine had a harder time staying indoors than ever before. These participants felt that they “cannot stand being at home more than before”, and were “sick and tired of being home”. They would rather be outside with a mask than stay inside without one, and tried to stay indoors as little as possible. Some participants even wanted to distance themselves from their quarantine spaces.
On the other hand, quarantine left opposite lasting effects on others. These participants reported that they became more comfortable with staying at home as they adapted to their quarantine experience. They felt it was safer to stay at home due to the still-standing COVID-19 situation. “Even though the quarantine was over, I decided not to go outside because I felt okay and safer to be at home”. Some participants grew a tendency to stay inside because they felt that keeping their masks on outside felt just as stuffy. “In Korea, I have to wear a mask when I go outside. But when I wear it, it makes me stuffy and out of breath. So, I’d rather not go out”.
Physical Health
The second domain of subjective experience of quarantine was Physical health. Participants typically reported that quarantine had physical consequences. Concerns surrounding actual or the potential of weight gain were the most prevalent. Due to quarantine, they could not engage in much physical activity. On the contrary, their food intake remained the same or increased. These factors together resulted in concerns of weight gain. Furthermore, few participants shared that quarantine took quite a toll on the body. They struggled from jet lag, which made them “fall asleep when I shouldn’t, and stay awake at night. Not having enough sleep made my mental state worse”.
Psychological Experience
Alongside Lifestyle and Physical health, Psychological experience was the third domain, and could be categorized into five categories: discomfort, infection anxiety, accepting, satisfying, gratitude. First, participants typically identified discomfort as the challenging psychological experience of quarantine. Reports of feeling constrained were the most common, while the type and intensity of discomfort that participants experienced ranged from mere boredom to depressive symptoms. Few were tempted to “go outside…I felt healthy and my COVID screening result was negative”. Some also “felt completely alone. And I could see that feeling of solitude intensifying into depression”.
Participants variantly reported infection anxiety. All participants were obligated to quarantine because the possibility of becoming a COVID patient could not be ruled out. This possibility triggered infection anxiety, as they started to see normal physical phenomena such as “coughing here and there” as potential COVID symptoms. “I heard on the news that some people tested positive on their second test even if they already tested negative on their first one. So, I was anxious that my result was a false negative”. Unfortunately, infection anxiety remained high until they “got a negative at that second screening”.
Nonetheless, not all psychological experiences were negative. Typically, participants accepted the situation as a necessary public health policy instead of as an unnecessary enforcement. One participant shared, “I said earlier that I felt shunned when I saw my mom disinfecting the stuff I touched. But after one day, I started to think, ‘Of course she should’. I got used to it quickly, and my parents and I prioritized COVID prevention”. Some participants “controlled emotions by changing my thoughts. If you think being in quarantine is tough, the struggle will never diminish”.
Furthermore, participants variantly experienced satisfaction during quarantine, as they utilized the 2-week period as a very concentrated time for their needs and desires. Participants who needed to fulfill their academic responsibilities such as “TAing…papers, researches, and final” experienced quarantine as an “undisturbed time that increased my productivity and concentration”. Furthermore, participants who “genuinely enjoy being home…[I] was really happy that I had to be home”.
Lastly, gratitude towards the situation was typically observed among participants. These participants viewed quarantine as a tool that the government was utilizing “to contain COVID effectively” for public health promotion, and felt “especially safe” to abide by the rules. In addition, they saw quarantine as an opportunity to be “home with…mom’s home cooked meals”. In fact, participants typically remained in Korea even after the quarantine.
Reflection
The last domain of subjective experience of quarantine was participants’ Reflection of their experiences, and mainly involved suggestions for the future and changed perspectives. First, suggestions for the future quarantine experience included “bringing some kind of entertainment to make time go by faster”. Suggestions for the systematic structure that runs the quarantine policy were targeted towards the government workers. One participant stated, “They should give the workers more incentives to increase their motivation. Because COVID is here for the long run, there is always a possibility for the situation to get worse and for them to be busier. They probably already feel like their work is worthy, but giving them more practical affirmations can’t hurt. A raise would be a good idea”.
In addition, as quarantine inevitably created distance between the participants and their ordinary lives, they were able to view their lives with a new perspective. More specifically, they were able to realize that “routine is not boring, but is a source of calmness”, and that ordinary things such as “delivery services...kitchenware...and human connection are essential to surviving”. Quarantine also had the effect of expanding one’s perspective towards the pandemic situation itself. One participant said “Ever since I went through quarantine, I have more understanding towards the people who unfortunately spread the disease by moving around while they were infected. I used to blame them for being selfish, but I now realize that they were just living their lives. They just didn’t know that they had the virus. So now, I feel like it’s not really their fault. Or actually, anyone’s fault”.
Ecological Factors Influencing the Subjective Experience of Quarantine
Bronfenbrenner’s socioecological model was used to examine the effects of the various layers of one’s surrounding on subjective experiences of self-quarantine. Four domains of ecological factors were found: Within-individual, Microsystem, Exosystem, and Macrosystem (Table 3).
Table 3 Ecological factors that affect subjective experience of quarantine
Domain
|
Category
|
Frequency
|
Within-Individual
|
Personality
|
14/Typical
|
|
Belief
|
10/Typical
|
Microsystem
|
Quarantine space
|
9/Typical
|
|
Personal Relationships
|
12/Typical
|
|
Coresident
|
10/Typical
|
|
Student status
|
9/Typical
|
|
Employment Status
|
4/Variant
|
Exosystem
|
Korea's quarantine policy
|
10/Typical
|
|
Korea's quarantine maintenance
|
16/General
|
|
Korea's quarantine resources
|
14/Typical
|
|
Abroad's preventive measures against COVID
|
14/Typical
|
Macrosystem
|
Stigma
|
10/Typical
|
|
Social Responsibility
|
9/Typical
|
Within-Individual: Personality and Belief
First domain was Within-individual, which contained two categories, personality and belief. Even though all the participants quarantined for the first time and only once, their subjective experiences varied significantly due to their personality and beliefs. Typically, participants reported how their personality impacted their quarantine experience. For example, introverted participants who described themselves as “homebody” were less impacted by the quarantine. These individuals were already having a significant amount of alone time before COVID, quarantine did not clash with their innate tendencies. In fact, one participant said, “I enjoyed the quarantine period because I didn’t have to go anywhere”. On the contrary, extroverts who normally “feel cramped if I stay at home alone for more than a day” felt “suffocated” because they tend to gain energy from being with others.
Personal beliefs also typically affected the subjective experience of the quarantine. Some participants believed that, if infected, they could be most properly treated in their mother country. They believed that having access to a medical system that they are well-acquainted with was an advantage. Consequently, they chose to come to Korea, making themselves subjects of quarantine. One participant delineated how such belief helped her remain grateful even in the face of the compulsory quarantine. She stated, “As soon as I landed in Korea, I felt less scared because I knew I would be treated well even if I got sick”.
Microsystem: Space, Relationship, Coresident and Employment status
The second domain Microsystem included quarantine space, personal relationships, coresident, student status, and employment status. It was typical for participants to identify their quarantine space as one of the factors that shaped their quarantine experience. One participant noted, “I quarantined at a house with a front yard. I spent a lot of time in the yard, which made my quarantine favorable compared to others”. On the other hand, some felt frustrated due to restricted spaces. “I felt suffocated when I looked around the tiny room. I almost had a panic attack because suddenly, I felt so cramped. I questioned how I’m going to survive in this small space”.
Also, participants typically reported that connecting with their personal relationships during the quarantine worked against the feeling of isolation. “My grandmother called me every morning to ask, ‘How are you? Are you sick?’ This was great psychological support”. Connecting with others who were also quarantining provided “an unparalleled amount of connectedness”. One participant emphasized, “We contacted each other about our own quarantine experience. It was such a great feeling of homogeneity”.
Moreover, the existence of a coresident typically altered the participants’ quarantine experience. It sometimes functioned as practical aid (e.g., preparing a meal), as well as psychological support. One participant said, “The presence of somebody put me at ease”. However, some participants felt hurt when coresidents expressed the anxiety of contagion. One said, “My mom forced me to strictly follow the quarantine rules as if she was a government authority. And she got scared whenever I had to pass through the living room. I ended up telling her that I feel unappreciated”.
Last two categories in the Microsystem were related to the social status of individuals, such as student status and employment status. First, although the medium to conduct and evaluate academic performance was changed, nine participants who self-identified as students reported that their self-quarantine revolved around school. One participant reported, “I had to continue my academic duties through remote schooling”.
We separated the employment status with student status since one’s employment condition variantly impacted the participants’ quarantine experience. One self-employed participant recounted, “I had to quarantine in Korea while...there was no one to check on the office space (which was abroad). But I still had to pay the rent. So I was feeling quite anxious and helpless”. On the other hand, others continued to work smoothly as they “could do my work on a computer. So my geographic location was not a concern as long as I could work”.
Exosystem: Policy, Maintenance, Resources, and Aborad’s COVID Measures
The third domain was Exosystem, as nationwide quarantine measures influenced the subjective experience of quarantine. Korea’s quarantine policy, maintenance, and resources, as well as abroad’s preventive measures against COVID fell under this domain. First, Korea’s quarantine regulations typically dictated the structural aspects of the participants’ subjective experience of quarantine. The regulations instructed the participants on how, when, and where to perform all quarantine related tasks. As a result, one participant had to “quarantine in a fire-service academy dormitory because quarantining with a coresident (sister) who works closely with a high-risk population (elementary school students) was forbidden”.
Secondly, the scrutiny of quarantine adherence monitoring, which differed by the government worker in charge, still generally impacted many aspects of the quarantine experience. One participant had the police on her front door after “forgetting to report my daily temperature and COVID symptoms”. Some implied that the monitoring was loose, and that “anyone could fool it” if they were determined to do so. Furthermore, the uncommon experience of having their moves tracked and monitored generated various reactions. Some participants viewed the close monitoring as “troublesome”, but more “felt rather protected as...it enables immediate detection of the symptoms...and early response”.
In addition, Korea’s quarantine resources typically played a significant role in the participants’ subjective experience. Number of participants expressed relief in being able to get tested for COVID-19 free of charge, and in being safely escorted to their quarantine space. Quarantine kit was one of the most apparent and tangible resources that influenced the subjective experience. According to the participants, all quarantine kits included essentials such as food supplies, sanitizers, thermometers, garbage bags, and etc. In some cases, the kit included non-essentials too: exercise equipment and a flower pot. Many participants were touched at what their country was doing for them. “It’s just protocol, but it was still so touching to receive the aid kit. How caring and thoughtful they are!”.
Lastly, participants typically mentioned that the abroad’s Exosystem, such as preventive measures against COVID-19, was what drove them to quarantine, as it increased their desire to come to Korea. In participants’ residing countries, securing food supplies was difficult, frenzy rumors about martial law were going around, many were dying due to lack of proper medical care, and etc. The unfolding “was so scary… That’s why I packed all my things and came to Korea”. Many also pointed out that they were likely to receive little support if they actually caught COVID-19 abroad. The difference is captured in the following words: “In Korea, it’s like, ‘You just abide by our rules, and we will take full care of you. Food, medical service… It’s all on us. You just do your job of quarantining’. But there (U.S), it’s more like, ‘You do everything on your own. You could get infected, so take good care of yourself’”.
Macrosystem: Stigma and Social Responsibility
Last domain that interacted with participant’s quarantine experience was Macrosystem, within which belonged two cultural categories: stigma and social responsibility. First, 10 out of 17 participants typically expressed concerns of being stigmatized. Although all participants were COVID-negative, they feared being labeled as the potential virus-holder. In the beginning of the outbreak, crowds did not hesitate to express rage towards confirmed patients who had unintentionally spread the virus to their communities. Subsequently, the possibility of being stigmatized as a ‘spreader’ motivated the participants to adhere to the quarantine requirements more. “What if my story got on the news? That was my greatest fear. What if I was broadcasted as a Ms. Something living in Pohang (city in Korea) who went out during quarantine and all of my family was exposed?”. Another participant commented, “If my behaviors were identified as the cause that the virus spread, everyone would blame and curse me for it. That’s why I was even more cautious”.
Lastly, participants’ social responsibility was another factor that typically enhanced quarantine compliance. They not only wanted to avoid getting reprimanded by their communities, but also wanted to fulfill their responsibility as good standing individuals within their communities. These participants “saw it (quarantine) as something I simply had to do. There was no doubt about it. I have been overseas, and I had symptoms of a cold. It was obvious that I would do this for our country and our people”. Some participants were especially considerate of the more vulnerable. For example, one chose to self-quarantine to “make sure to keep my elderly parents safe”. Another said, “I work in an academy with young kids. Spreading the virus there would be really terrible. We all know kids’ immune systems aren’t as strong”.