There is growing evidence that political polarization poses a substantial risk to individual and collective well-being, says a new study published in the journal Nature.

Political polarization, according to the study, refers to “a state in which the opinions, beliefs or interests of a group or society no longer range along a continuum but become concentrated at opposing extremes.” 

“Polarization is a collective phenomenon, whereas ‘partisanship’ applies at the individual level, reflecting deep-rooted social and/or political identities,” the study explains. 

The study specifically points out the role of “political partisanship” during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, terming it as “one of the strongest predictors of COVID-19 vaccination rates.” 

“Beliefs and norms around the coronavirus were starkly different between Republicans and Democrats,” the study highlights.“This partisan vaccination gap, in turn, was linked to an excess death rate among Republican voters that was 43% higher than among Democratic voters.” 

In Europe too, the study links political polarization to vaccine hesitancy. 

“Thus, there is an urgent need to understand and mitigate the health risks associated with political polarization at a global level,” the study says.

While evidence suggests that several social determinants of health can affect disease prevalence, disease prevention and life expectancy, economic upheaval shapes behaviors, including substance abuse and suicide. Political factors, on the other hand, contribute to community-level and individual-level vulnerabilities to these outcomes, the study reveals

Different forms of polarization, the study says, are connected to different health risks.  

Using a clinical analogy, the authors argue that political polarization should be considered a national ‘preexisting condition’. 

“Polarization shapes not only how effectively political leaders pass crucial legislation and coordinate essential functions during a health crisis, but also how individual citizens interpret public health risks, whom they trust and what healthcare services they access,” the study says. “Political rhetoric can exacerbate existing polarization by linking partisan identities to healthy (or unhealthy) behaviors.” 

The study provides an example of “how wearing a mask can become a symbol of partisan affiliation—making one group of citizens more likely to wear masks while leading another group of citizens to forgo or even oppose them.”

Polarization can impair public health by making it harder to pass relevant legislation, administer medical supplies effectively or convince reluctant patients to engage in health-promoting behaviors, the study finds. 

The authors divide polarization into two forms-ideological and affective: Ideological polarization is the “extremification” of a group’s policy positions or broad ideological orientations. And affective polarization is a state in which partisans come to love their partisan in-group, loathe the out-group or both.

“At the policy level, ideological polarization can make it difficult for political parties to reach necessary compromises or develop legislation on matters of public health. It might also lead to rollbacks of healthcare rights and policy (such as those relating to abortion) when one party takes power,” the study says. “Developing effective public policy becomes difficult when disagreements are based on partisan identification rather than evidence.”

Also read: Election results to affect patient, community health, health care delivery system in US: Medical journal - First Check