The NSF Public Access Repository (PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 8:00 PM ET on Friday, March 21 until 8:00 AM ET on Saturday, March 22 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Explore Research Products in the PAR It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.
Title: How bad is it? Suicidality in the middle of the COVID‐19 pandemic
AbstractObjective
The current paper examines the intersection between social vulnerability, individual risk, and social/psychological resources with adult suicidality during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Method
Data come from a national sample (n = 10,368) of U.S. adults. Using an online platform, information was gathered during the third week of March 2020, and post‐stratification weighted to proportionally represent the U.S. population in terms of age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, and geography.
Results
Nearly 15 percent of sampled respondents were categorized as high risk, scoring 7+ on the Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire‐Revised (SBQ‐R). This level of risk varied across social vulnerability groupings: Blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, families with children, unmarried, and younger respondents reported higher SBQ‐R scores than their counterparts (p < .000). Regression results confirm these bivariate differences and also reveal that risk factors (food insecurity, physical symptoms, and CES‐D symptomatology) are positive and significantly related to suicidality (p < .000). Additionally, resource measures are significant and negatively related to suicidality (p < .000).
Conclusions
These results provide some insight on the impact COVID‐19 is having on the general U.S. population. Practitioners should be prepared for what will likely be a significant mental health fall‐out in the months and years ahead.
Chakraborty, J.; Grineski, S. E.; Collins, T. W.; Aun, J. J.(
, Journal of Public Health)
AbstractBackground
This article addresses the urgent need for more evidence-based research using primary data to document how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the health and social wellbeing of disabled individuals. Our study sought to determine if adults with disabilities, and with specific types of disability, were more likely to suffer adverse health and social impacts related to COVID-19 than nondisabled adults in metropolitan Texas, during the first 18 months of the pandemic.
Methods
We collected primary data from randomly selected residents in eight Texas metropolitan areas through a bilingual telephone survey in July 2021. Statistical analysis comprised multivariable generalized estimating equations that control for relevant sociodemographic and COVID-related risk factors, and spatial clustering.
Results
Disabled survey respondents had been more adversely affected by COVID-19 than nondisabled respondents, in terms of mental and physical health, health care access, living conditions and social life. Significant disparities were also found for almost all COVID-19 impacts when the disabled category was disaggregated by disability type. Respondents experiencing cognitive and independent living difficulties were negatively impacted in all five areas of life examined.
Conclusions
Findings emphasize the need to consider a wide range of impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic that negatively affect the health and social wellbeing of disabled persons, as well as develop disability-inclusive policies that provide adequate protections.
Mikhail, Megan E.; Ackerman, Lindsay S.; Culbert, Kristen M.; Burt, S. Alexandra; Neale, Michael C.; Keel, Pamela K.; Katzman, Debra K.; Klump, Kelly L.(
, International Journal of Eating Disorders)
AbstractBackground
COVID‐19 was associated with significant financial hardship and increased binge eating (BE). However, it is largely unknown whether financial stressors contributed to BE during the pandemic. We used a longitudinal, cotwin control design that controls for genetic/environmental confounds by comparing twins in the same family to examine whether financial hardship during COVID‐19 was associated with BE.
Methods
Female twins (N = 158;Mage = 22.13) from the Michigan State University Twin Registry rated financial stressors (e.g., inability to afford necessities) daily for 49 consecutive days during COVID‐19. We first examined whether financial hardship was associated with BE phenotypes across the full sample. We then examined whether cotwins who differed on financial hardship also differed in BE.
Results
Participants who experienced greater mean financial hardship across the study had significantly greater dimensional BE symptoms, and participants who experienced greater financial hardship on a given day reported significantly more emotional eating that day. These results were replicated in cotwin control analyses. Twins who experienced more financial hardship than their cotwin across the study reported greater dimensional BE symptoms than their cotwin, and participants who experienced more financial hardship than their cotwin on a given day reported greater emotional eating that day. Results were identical when restricting analyses to monozygotic twins, suggesting associations were not due to genetic confounds.
Conclusions
Results suggest that BE‐related symptoms may be elevated in women who experienced financial hardship during COVID‐19 independent of potential genetic/environmental confounds. However, additional research in larger samples is needed.
Public Significance
Little is known regarding how financial difficulties during the COVID‐19 pandemic may have contributed to increased binge eating (BE). We found preliminary evidence that financial hardship during COVID‐19 may be associated with greater rates of BE‐related symptoms even when comparing twins from the same family. While additional research is needed, results suggest that people who experienced financial hardship during COVID‐19 may be at increased risk for BE.
Bruckhaus, Alexander A; Zhang, Yujia; Salehi, Sana; Abedi, Aidin; Duncan, Dominique(
, Frontiers in Public Health)
Background
COVID-19 is constantly evolving, and highly populated communities consist of many different characteristics that may contribute to COVID-19 health outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to (1) quantify the relationships between county characteristics and severe and non-severe county-level health outcomes related to COVID-19. We also aimed to (2) compare these relationships across time periods where the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529 and BA.1.1) variants were dominant in the U.S.
Methods
We used multiple regression to measure the strength of relationships between healthcare outcomes and county characteristics in the 50 most populous U.S. counties.
Results
We found many different significant predictors including the proportion of a population vaccinated, median household income, population density, and the proportion of residents aged 65+, but mainly found that socioeconomic factors and the proportion of a population vaccinated play a large role in the dynamics of the spread and severity of COVID-19 in communities with high populations.
Discussion
The present study shines light on the associations between public health outcomes and county characteristics and how these relationships change throughout Delta and Omicron’s dominance. It is important to understand factors underlying COVID-19 health outcomes to prepare for future health crises.
We examine the uneven social and spatial distributions of COVID-19 and their relationships with indicators of social vulnerability in the U.S. epicenter, New York City (NYC). As of July 17th, 2020, NYC, despite having only 2.5% of the U.S. population, has [Formula: see text]6% of all confirmed cases, and [Formula: see text]16% of all deaths, making it a key learning ground for the social dynamics of the disease. Our analysis focuses on the multiple potential social, economic, and demographic drivers of disproportionate impacts in COVID-19 cases and deaths, as well as population rates of testing. Findings show that immediate impacts of COVID-19 largely fall along lines of race and class. Indicators of poverty, race, disability, language isolation, rent burden, unemployment, lack of health insurance, and housing crowding all significantly drive spatial patterns in prevalence of COVID-19 testing, confirmed cases, death rates, and severity. Income in particular has a consistent negative relationship with rates of death and disease severity. The largest differences in social vulnerability indicators are also driven by populations of people of color, poverty, housing crowding, and rates of disability. Results highlight the need for targeted responses to address injustice of COVID-19 cases and deaths, importance of recovery strategies that account for differential vulnerability, and provide an analytical approach for advancing research to examine potential similar injustice of COVID-19 in other U.S. cities. Significance Statement Communities around the world have variable success in mitigating the social impacts of COVID-19, with many urban areas being hit particularly hard. Analysis of social vulnerability to COVID-19 in the NYC, the U.S. national epicenter, shows strongly disproportionate impacts of the pandemic on low income populations and communities of color. Results highlight the class and racial inequities of the coronavirus pandemic in NYC, and the need to unpack the drivers of social vulnerability. To that aim, we provide a replicable framework for examining patterns of uneven social vulnerability to COVID-19- using publicly available data which can be readily applied in other study regions, especially within the U.S.A. This study is important to inform public and policy debate over strategies for short- and long-term responses that address the injustice of disproportionate impacts of COVID-19. Although similar studies examining social vulnerability and equity dimensions of the COVID-19 outbreak in cities across the U.S. have been conducted (Cordes and Castro 2020, Kim and Bostwick 2002, Gaynor and Wilson 2020; Wang et al. 2020; Choi and Unwin 2020), this study provides a more comprehensive analysis in NYC that extends previous contributions to use the highest resolution spatial units for data aggregation (ZCTAs). We also include mortality and severity rates as key indicators and provide a replicable framework that draws from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability indicators for communities in NYC.
COVID-19 mitigation strategies such as masking, social distancing, avoiding group gatherings, and vaccination uptake are crucial interventions to preventing the spread of COVID-19. At present, COVID-19 data are aggregated and fail to identify subgroup variation in Asian American communities such as Hmong Americans. To understand the acceptance, adoption, and adherence to COVID-19 mitigation behaviors, an investigation of Hmong Americans’ contextual and personal characteristics was conducted.
Methods
This study aims to describe COVID-19 mitigation behaviors among Hmong Americans and the contextual and personal characteristics that influence these behaviors. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from April 8 till June 1, 2021, with Hmong Americans aged 18 and over. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the overall characteristics and COVID-19 related behaviors of Hmong Americans. Chi-square and Fisher’s Exact Test were computed to describe COVID-19 mitigation behaviors by gender and generational status (a marker of acculturation).
Results
The sample included 507 participants who completed the survey. A majority of the Hmong American participants in our study reported masking (449/505, 88.9%), social distancing (270/496, 55.3%), avoiding group gatherings (345/505, 68.3%), avoiding public spaces (366/506, 72.3%), and obtaining the COVID-19 vaccination (350/506, 69.2%) to stay safe from COVID-19. Women were more likely to socially distance (P = .005), and avoid family (P = .005), and social gatherings (P = .009) compared to men. Social influence patterns related to mitigation behaviors varied by sex. Men were more likely compared to women to be influenced by Hmong community leaders to participate in family and group gatherings (P = .026), masking (P = .029), social distancing (P = .022), and vaccination uptake (P = .037), whereas healthcare providers and government officials were social influencers for social distancing and masking for women. Patterns of social distancing and group gatherings were also influenced by generational status.
Conclusion
Contextual and personal characteristics influence COVID-19 mitigation behaviors among English speaking Hmong Americans. These findings have implications for identifying and implementing culturally appropriate health messages, future public health interventions, policy development, and ongoing research with this population.
Fitzpatrick, Kevin M., Harris, Casey, and Drawve, Grant. How bad is it? Suicidality in the middle of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 50.6 Web. doi:10.1111/sltb.12655.
Fitzpatrick, Kevin M., Harris, Casey, & Drawve, Grant. How bad is it? Suicidality in the middle of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 50 (6). https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12655
Fitzpatrick, Kevin M., Harris, Casey, and Drawve, Grant.
"How bad is it? Suicidality in the middle of the COVID‐19 pandemic". Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 50 (6). Country unknown/Code not available: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12655.https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10455498.
@article{osti_10455498,
place = {Country unknown/Code not available},
title = {How bad is it? Suicidality in the middle of the COVID‐19 pandemic},
url = {https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10455498},
DOI = {10.1111/sltb.12655},
abstractNote = {Abstract ObjectiveThe current paper examines the intersection between social vulnerability, individual risk, and social/psychological resources with adult suicidality during the COVID‐19 pandemic. MethodData come from a national sample (n = 10,368) of U.S. adults. Using an online platform, information was gathered during the third week of March 2020, and post‐stratification weighted to proportionally represent the U.S. population in terms of age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, and geography. ResultsNearly 15 percent of sampled respondents were categorized as high risk, scoring 7+ on the Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire‐Revised (SBQ‐R). This level of risk varied across social vulnerability groupings: Blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, families with children, unmarried, and younger respondents reported higher SBQ‐R scores than their counterparts (p < .000). Regression results confirm these bivariate differences and also reveal that risk factors (food insecurity, physical symptoms, and CES‐D symptomatology) are positive and significantly related to suicidality (p < .000). Additionally, resource measures are significant and negatively related to suicidality (p < .000). ConclusionsThese results provide some insight on the impact COVID‐19 is having on the general U.S. population. Practitioners should be prepared for what will likely be a significant mental health fall‐out in the months and years ahead.},
journal = {Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior},
volume = {50},
number = {6},
publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
author = {Fitzpatrick, Kevin M. and Harris, Casey and Drawve, Grant},
}
Warning: Leaving National Science Foundation Website
You are now leaving the National Science Foundation website to go to a non-government website.
Website:
NSF takes no responsibility for and exercises no control over the views expressed or the accuracy of
the information contained on this site. Also be aware that NSF's privacy policy does not apply to this site.
