skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Mental associations with COVID-19 and how they relate with self-reported protective behaviors: A national survey in the United States
Title: Mental associations with COVID-19 and how they relate with self-reported protective behaviors: A national survey in the United States
Rationale To understand novel diseases, patients may draw comparisons to other diseases. Objective We examined whether mentally associating specific diseases with COVID-19 was related to self-reported protective behaviors early in the pandemic. Methods In March 2020, a national sample of 6534 U.S. adults listed diseases that came to mind when thinking of COVID-19. They self-reported protective behaviors, demographics, and COVID-19 risk perceptions. Results Participants associated COVID-19 with common infectious diseases like seasonal influenza (59%), common cold (11%), and pneumonia (10%), or emergent infectious diseases like pandemic influenza (28%), SARS/MERS (27%), and Ebola (14%). Seasonal influenza was most commonly mentioned, in all demographic groups. Participants mentioning seasonal influenza or common cold reported fewer protective behaviors. Those mentioning pneumonia or emergent infectious diseases reported more protective behaviors. Mentioning pneumonia, SARS/MERS, and Ebola was associated with the most protective behaviors, after accounting for other generated diseases, demographics, and risk perceptions (e.g., for avoiding crowds, OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.26, 1.83; OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.46; OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.52, respectively). Conclusions Early in the pandemic, most participants mentally associated COVID-19 with seasonal flu, which may have undermined willingness to protect themselves. To motivate behavior change, COVID-19 risk communications may need to mention diseases that resonate with people while retaining accuracy.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2027094
PAR ID:
10217906
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Social science medicine
Volume:
275
ISSN:
0277-9536
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; (, Epidemiology and Infection)
    null (Ed.)
    Abstract Deaths are frequently under-estimated during emergencies, times when accurate mortality estimates are crucial for emergency response. This study estimates excess all-cause, pneumonia and influenza mortality during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using the 11 September 2020 release of weekly mortality data from the United States (U.S.) Mortality Surveillance System (MSS) from 27 September 2015 to 9 May 2020, using semiparametric and conventional time-series models in 13 states with high reported COVID-19 deaths and apparently complete mortality data: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. We estimated greater excess mortality than official COVID-19 mortality in the U.S. (excess mortality 95% confidence interval (CI) 100 013–127 501 vs. 78 834 COVID-19 deaths) and 9 states: California (excess mortality 95% CI 3338–6344) vs. 2849 COVID-19 deaths); Connecticut (excess mortality 95% CI 3095–3952) vs. 2932 COVID-19 deaths); Illinois (95% CI 4646–6111) vs. 3525 COVID-19 deaths); Louisiana (excess mortality 95% CI 2341–3183 vs. 2267 COVID-19 deaths); Massachusetts (95% CI 5562–7201 vs. 5050 COVID-19 deaths); New Jersey (95% CI 13 170–16 058 vs. 10 465 COVID-19 deaths); New York (95% CI 32 538–39 960 vs. 26 584 COVID-19 deaths); and Pennsylvania (95% CI 5125–6560 vs. 3793 COVID-19 deaths). Conventional model results were consistent with semiparametric results but less precise. Significant excess pneumonia deaths were also found for all locations and we estimated hundreds of excess influenza deaths in New York. We find that official COVID-19 mortality substantially understates actual mortality, excess deaths cannot be explained entirely by official COVID-19 death counts. Mortality reporting lags appeared to worsen during the pandemic, when timeliness in surveillance systems was most crucial for improving pandemic response. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; (, PloS one)
    Background The United States has experienced high surge in COVID-19 cases since the dawn of 2020. Identifying the types of diagnoses that pose a risk in leading COVID-19 death casualties will enable our community to obtain a better perspective in identifying the most vulnerable populations and enable these populations to implement better precautionary measures. Objective To identify demographic factors and health diagnosis codes that pose a high or a low risk to COVID-19 death from individual health record data sourced from the United States. Methods We used logistic regression models to analyze the top 500 health diagnosis codes and demographics that have been identified as being associated with COVID-19 death. Results Among 223,286 patients tested positive at least once, 218,831 (98%) patients were alive and 4,455 (2%) patients died during the duration of the study period. Through our logistic regression analysis, four demographic characteristics of patients; age, gender, race and region, were deemed to be associated with COVID-19 mortality. Patients from the West region of the United States: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming had the highest odds ratio of COVID-19 mortality across the United States. In terms of diagnoses, Complications mainly related to pregnancy (Adjusted Odds Ratio, OR:2.95; 95% Confidence Interval, CI:1.4 - 6.23) hold the highest odds ratio in influencing COVID-19 death followed by Other diseases of the respiratory system (OR:2.0; CI:1.84 – 2.18), Renal failure (OR:1.76; CI:1.61 – 1.93), Influenza and pneumonia (OR:1.53; CI:1.41 – 1.67), Other bacterial diseases (OR:1.45; CI:1.31 – 1.61), Coagulation defects, purpura and other hemorrhagic conditions(OR:1.37; CI:1.22 – 1.54), Injuries to the head (OR:1.27; CI:1.1 - 1.46), Mood [affective] disorders (OR:1.24; CI:1.12 – 1.36), Aplastic and other anemias (OR:1.22; CI:1.12 – 1.34), Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and allied conditions (OR:1.18; CI:1.06 – 1.32), Other forms of heart disease (OR:1.18; CI:1.09 – 1.28), Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue (OR: 1.15; CI:1.04 – 1.27), Diabetes mellitus (OR:1.14; CI:1.03 – 1.26), and Other diseases of the urinary system (OR:1.12; CI:1.03 – 1.21). Conclusion We found demographic factors and medical conditions, including some novel ones which are associated with COVID-19 death. These findings can be used for clinical and public awareness and for future research purposes. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, JAMA Network Open)
    ImportanceTrust in physicians and hospitals has been associated with achieving public health goals, but the increasing politicization of public health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic may have adversely affected such trust. ObjectiveTo characterize changes in US adults’ trust in physicians and hospitals over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and the association between this trust and health-related behaviors. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study uses data from 24 waves of a nonprobability internet survey conducted between April 1, 2020, and January 31, 2024, among 443 455 unique respondents aged 18 years or older residing in the US, with state-level representative quotas for race and ethnicity, age, and gender. Main Outcome and MeasureSelf-report of trust in physicians and hospitals; self-report of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza vaccination and booster status. Survey-weighted regression models were applied to examine associations between sociodemographic features and trust and between trust and health behaviors. ResultsThe combined data included 582 634 responses across 24 survey waves, reflecting 443 455 unique respondents. The unweighted mean (SD) age was 43.3 (16.6) years; 288 186 respondents (65.0%) reported female gender; 21 957 (5.0%) identified as Asian American, 49 428 (11.1%) as Black, 38 423 (8.7%) as Hispanic, 3138 (0.7%) as Native American, 5598 (1.3%) as Pacific Islander, 315 278 (71.1%) as White, and 9633 (2.2%) as other race and ethnicity (those who selected “Other” from a checklist). Overall, the proportion of adults reporting a lot of trust for physicians and hospitals decreased from 71.5% (95% CI, 70.7%-72.2%) in April 2020 to 40.1% (95% CI, 39.4%-40.7%) in January 2024. In regression models, features associated with lower trust as of spring and summer 2023 included being 25 to 64 years of age, female gender, lower educational level, lower income, Black race, and living in a rural setting. These associations persisted even after controlling for partisanship. In turn, greater trust was associated with greater likelihood of vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.94; 95 CI, 4.21-5.80) or influenza (adjusted OR, 5.09; 95 CI, 3.93-6.59) and receiving a SARS-CoV-2 booster (adjusted OR, 3.62; 95 CI, 2.99-4.38). Conclusions and RelevanceThis survey study of US adults suggests that trust in physicians and hospitals decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. As lower levels of trust were associated with lesser likelihood of pursuing vaccination, restoring trust may represent a public health imperative. 
    more » « less
  4. ; (, Social Science & Medicine)
    Two decades ago a research team clarified that cross-sectional associations of risk perceptions and protective behavior can only test an “accuracy” hypothesis: e.g., people with higher risk perceptions at Ti should also exhibit low protective behavior and/or high risky behavior at Ti. They argued that these associations are too often interpreted wrongly as testing two other hypotheses, only testable longitudinally: the “behavioral motivation” hypothesis, that high risk perception at Ti increases protective behavior at Ti+1, and the “risk reappraisal” hypothesis, that protective behavior at Ti reduces risk perception at Ti+1. Further, this team argued that risk perception measures should be conditional (e.g., personal risk perception if one’s behavior does not change). Yet these theses have garnered relatively little empirical testing. An online longitudinal panel study of U.S. residents’ COVID-19 views across six survey waves over 14 months in 2020–2021 tested these hypotheses for six behaviors (hand washing, mask wearing, avoiding travel to infected areas, avoiding large public gatherings, vaccination, and [for five waves] social isolation at home). Accuracy and behavioral motivation hypotheses were supported for both behaviors and intentions, excluding a few waves (particularly in February–April 2020, when the pandemic was new in the U.S.) and behaviors. The risk reappraisal hypothesis was contradicted—protective behavior at one wave increased risk perception later—perhaps reflecting continuing uncertainty about efficacy of COVID-19 protective behaviors and/or that dynamic infectious diseases may yield different patterns than chronic diseases dominating such hypothesis-testing. These findings raise intriguing questions for both perception- behavior theory and behavior change practice. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, American Journal of Epidemiology)
    Abstract Some reproductive-aged individuals remain unvaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because of concerns about potential adverse effects on fertility. Using data from an internet-based preconception cohort study, we examined the associations of COVID-19 vaccination and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with fertility among couples trying to conceive spontaneously. We enrolled 2,126 self-identified female participants aged 21–45 year residing in the United States or Canada during December 2020–September 2021 and followed them through November 2021. Participants completed questionnaires every 8 weeks on sociodemographics, lifestyle, medical factors, and partner information. We fit proportional probabilities regression models to estimate associations between self-reported COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection in both partners with fecundability (i.e., the per-cycle probability of conception), adjusting for potential confounders. COVID-19 vaccination was not appreciably associated with fecundability in either partner (female fecundability ratio (FR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95, 1.23; male FR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.10). Female SARS-CoV-2 infection was not strongly associated with fecundability (FR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.31). Male infection was associated with a transient reduction in fecundability (for infection within 60 days, FR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.45; for infection after 60 days, FR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.47). These findings indicate that male SARS-CoV-2 infection may be associated with a short-term decline in fertility and that COVID-19 vaccination does not impair fertility in either partner. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email