Search for: All records

Abstract Belief in conspiracy theories has significant social and political consequences. While prior research has focused primarily on psychological predispositions as drivers of conspiracy beliefs, relatively less is known about the role of social networks. Here, we examine how information received from different sources is linked to the endorsement of conspiracy theories, using the 2024 attempted assassination of presidential candidate Donald Trump as a case study. In surveys conducted days after the attack, social media was the most commonly reported source of conspiracy theories about the event. At the same time, information consumption on social media was not consistently associated with stronger conspiracy beliefs. In contrast, information received through interpersonal ties was more closely linked to belief in both left-leaning and right-leaning conspiratorial narratives. These findings highlight the importance of examining the social dimensions of conspiracy belief formation. Understanding how interpersonal communication shapes conspiracy beliefs is critical for explaining their spread and persistence. Future research would benefit from further investigating the social contexts that sustain conspiratorial thinking. 

ImportanceEfforts to understand the complex association between social media use and mental health have focused on depression, with little investigation of other forms of negative affect, such as irritability and anxiety. ObjectiveTo characterize the association between self-reported use of individual social media platforms and irritability among US adults. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study analyzed data from 2 waves of the COVID States Project, a nonprobability web-based survey conducted between November 2, 2023, and January 8, 2024, and applied multiple linear regression models to estimate associations with irritability. Survey respondents were aged 18 years and older. ExposureSelf-reported social media use. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was score on the Brief Irritability Test (range, 5-30), with higher scores indicating greater irritability. ResultsAcross the 2 survey waves, there were 42 597 unique participants, with mean (SD) age 46.0 (17.0) years; 24 919 (58.5%) identified as women, 17 222 (40.4%) as men, and 456 (1.1%) as nonbinary. In the full sample, 1216 (2.9%) identified as Asian American, 5939 (13.9%) as Black, 5322 (12.5%) as Hispanic, 624 (1.5%) as Native American, 515 (1.2%) as Pacific Islander, 28 354 (66.6%) as White, and 627 (1.5%) as other (ie, selecting the other option prompted the opportunity to provide a free-text self-description). In total, 33 325 (78.2%) of the survey respondents reported daily use of at least 1 social media platform, including 6037 (14.2%) using once a day, 16 678 (39.2%) using multiple times a day, and 10 610 (24.9%) using most of the day. Frequent use of social media was associated with significantly greater irritability in univariate regression models (for more than once a day vs never, 1.43 points [95% CI, 1.22-1.63 points]; for most of the day vs never, 3.37 points [95% CI, 3.15-3.60 points]) and adjusted models (for more than once a day, 0.38 points [95% CI, 0.18-0.58 points]; for most of the day, 1.55 points [95% CI, 1.32-1.78 points]). These associations persisted after incorporating measures of political engagement. Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of 42 597 US adults, irritability represented another correlate of social media use that merits further characterization, in light of known associations with depression and suicidality. 

ImportanceGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly entered mainstream use in the US, but its association with mental health has not been characterized. ObjectiveTo examine the associations of the extent and type of generative AI use among US adults with negative affective symptoms in a large, nationally representative sample. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study used data from a 50-state US internet nonprobability survey conducted between April and May 2025. Survey respondents were aged 18 years and older. Data were analyzed in August 2025. ExposureParticipants self-reported generative AI and social media use. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe outcome of interest, negative affect, was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9). ResultsThere were 20 847 unique participants, with mean (SD) age 47.3 (17.1) years and 10 327 (49.5%) female, 10 386 (49.8%) male, and 134 (0.6%) nonbinary participants; 2152 participants (10.3%) reported using AI at least daily, including 1053 participants (5.1%) who reported daily use and 1099 participants (5.3%) who reported use multiple times per day. Among participants who used daily or more frequently, 1033 (48.0%) reported use for work, 246 (11.4%) for school, and 1875 (87.1%) for personal applications. In survey-weighted regression models, daily or more frequent AI use was significantly more common among men, younger adults, those with higher education and income, and those in urban settings. Greater AI use was associated with greater levels of depressive symptoms in sociodemographic-adjusted regression models: (daily use: β = 1.08 [95% CI, 0.55-1.62]; multiple times per day: β = 0.86 [95% CI, 0.35-1.37]) compared with nonuse, and with greater likelihood of reporting at least moderate depressive symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 1.29 [95% CI, 1.15-1.46]); similar patterns were observed for anxiety and irritability. The highest estimates were observed among individuals using AI for personal use (β = 0.31 [95% CI, 0.10-0.52]) and those aged 25 to 44 years (β = 1.22 [95% CI, 0.70-1.74]) or 45 to 64 years (β = 1.38 [95% CI, 0.72-2.05]). Conclusions and RelevanceThis survey study found that AI use was significantly associated with greater depressive symptoms, with magnitude of differences varying by age group. Further work is needed to understand whether these associations are causal and explain heterogeneous effects. 

ImportanceIdentifying and tracking new infections during an emerging pandemic is crucial to design and deploy interventions to protect populations and mitigate the pandemic’s effects, yet it remains a challenging task. ObjectiveTo characterize the ability of nonprobability online surveys to longitudinally estimate the number of COVID-19 infections in the population both in the presence and absence of institutionalized testing. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsInternet-based online nonprobability surveys were conducted among residents aged 18 years or older across 50 US states and the District of Columbia, using the PureSpectrum survey vendor, approximately every 6 weeks between June 1, 2020, and January 31, 2023, for a multiuniversity consortium—the COVID States Project. Surveys collected information on COVID-19 infections with representative state-level quotas applied to balance age, sex, race and ethnicity, and geographic distribution. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were (1) survey-weighted estimates of new monthly confirmed COVID-19 cases in the US from January 2020 to January 2023 and (2) estimates of uncounted test-confirmed cases from February 1, 2022, to January 1, 2023. These estimates were compared with institutionally reported COVID-19 infections collected by Johns Hopkins University and wastewater viral concentrations for SARS-CoV-2 from Biobot Analytics. ResultsThe survey spanned 17 waves deployed from June 1, 2020, to January 31, 2023, with a total of 408 515 responses from 306 799 respondents (mean [SD] age, 42.8 [13.0] years; 202 416 women [66.0%]). Overall, 64 946 respondents (15.9%) self-reported a test-confirmed COVID-19 infection. National survey-weighted test-confirmed COVID-19 estimates were strongly correlated with institutionally reported COVID-19 infections (Pearson correlation,r = 0.96;P < .001) from April 2020 to January 2022 (50-state correlation mean [SD] value,r = 0.88 [0.07]). This was before the government-led mass distribution of at-home rapid tests. After January 2022, correlation was diminished and no longer statistically significant (r = 0.55;P = .08; 50-state correlation mean [SD] value,r = 0.48 [0.23]). In contrast, survey COVID-19 estimates correlated highly with SARS-CoV-2 viral concentrations in wastewater both before (r = 0.92;P < .001) and after (r = 0.89;P < .001) January 2022. Institutionally reported COVID-19 cases correlated (r = 0.79;P < .001) with wastewater viral concentrations before January 2022, but poorly (r = 0.31;P = .35) after, suggesting that both survey and wastewater estimates may have better captured test-confirmed COVID-19 infections after January 2022. Consistent correlation patterns were observed at the state level. Based on national-level survey estimates, approximately 54 million COVID-19 cases were likely unaccounted for in official records between January 2022 and January 2023. Conclusions and RelevanceThis study suggests that nonprobability survey data can be used to estimate the temporal evolution of test-confirmed infections during an emerging disease outbreak. Self-reporting tools may enable government and health care officials to implement accessible and affordable at-home testing for efficient infection monitoring in the future. 

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. 

Abstract Americans’ trust in scientists has been stable and high, relative to other political and social institutions, for the last half century (Krause, Brossard, and Scheufele 2019). Yet, underlying this stability lies a dramatic change such that a partisan gap has emerged, with Democrats exhibiting substantially more trust than Republicans. Fifty years ago, Republicans in fact exhibited more relative trust in scientists. This article explains this continuity and change. First, we demonstrate that the demographic correlates of trust in scientists have been remarkably stable for more than a half century: women, Black, rural, religious, non-college educated, and lower/working-class individuals exhibit less trust than their counterparts. Second, we show that the partisan relationship with trust in scientists has flipped (over that same time period) as low-trusting demographic strata shifted partisan allegiances. This is particularly the case when it comes to education and religiosity. Concomitant with the emergent partisan gap is a massive perceptual gap among Democrats, who perceive a partisan divide more than double its actual size. Democrats vastly underestimate Republicans’ trust in scientists. The enduring demographic basis of trust in scientists provides an opportunity to bridge partisan divides by addressing demographic inequities in the practice and application of science. 

ImportanceThe frequent occurrence of cognitive symptoms in post–COVID-19 condition has been described, but the nature of these symptoms and their demographic and functional factors are not well characterized in generalizable populations. ObjectiveTo investigate the prevalence of self-reported cognitive symptoms in post–COVID-19 condition, in comparison with individuals with prior acute SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not develop post–COVID-19 condition, and their association with other individual features, including depressive symptoms and functional status. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsTwo waves of a 50-state nonprobability population-based internet survey conducted between December 22, 2022, and May 5, 2023. Participants included survey respondents aged 18 years and older. ExposurePost–COVID-19 condition, defined as self-report of symptoms attributed to COVID-19 beyond 2 months after the initial month of illness. Main Outcomes and MeasuresSeven items from the Neuro-QoL cognition battery assessing the frequency of cognitive symptoms in the past week and patient Health Questionnaire-9. ResultsThe 14 767 individuals reporting test-confirmed COVID-19 illness at least 2 months before the survey had a mean (SD) age of 44.6 (16.3) years; 568 (3.8%) were Asian, 1484 (10.0%) were Black, 1408 (9.5%) were Hispanic, and 10 811 (73.2%) were White. A total of 10 037 respondents (68.0%) were women and 4730 (32.0%) were men. Of the 1683 individuals reporting post–COVID-19 condition, 955 (56.7%) reported at least 1 cognitive symptom experienced daily, compared with 3552 of 13 084 (27.1%) of those who did not report post–COVID-19 condition. More daily cognitive symptoms were associated with a greater likelihood of reporting at least moderate interference with functioning (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.25-1.36]; adjusted [AOR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.25-1.36]), lesser likelihood of full-time employment (unadjusted OR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.91-0.99]; AOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.96]) and greater severity of depressive symptoms (unadjusted coefficient, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]; adjusted coefficient 1.27 [95% CI, 1.17-1.38). After including depressive symptoms in regression models, associations were also found between cognitive symptoms and at least moderate interference with everyday functioning (AOR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.21-1.33]) and between cognitive symptoms and lower odds of full-time employment (AOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.97]). Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this survey study of US adults suggest that cognitive symptoms are common among individuals with post–COVID-19 condition and associated with greater self-reported functional impairment, lesser likelihood of full-time employment, and greater depressive symptom severity. Screening for and addressing cognitive symptoms is an important component of the public health response to post–COVID-19 condition. 

ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has been notable for the widespread dissemination of misinformation regarding the virus and appropriate treatment. ObjectiveTo quantify the prevalence of non–evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 in the US and the association between such treatment and endorsement of misinformation as well as lack of trust in physicians and scientists. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis single-wave, population-based, nonprobability internet survey study was conducted between December 22, 2022, and January 16, 2023, in US residents 18 years or older who reported prior COVID-19 infection. Main Outcome and MeasureSelf-reported use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, endorsing false statements related to COVID-19 vaccination, self-reported trust in various institutions, conspiratorial thinking measured by the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale, and news sources. ResultsA total of 13 438 individuals (mean [SD] age, 42.7 [16.1] years; 9150 [68.1%] female and 4288 [31.9%] male) who reported prior COVID-19 infection were included in this study. In this cohort, 799 (5.9%) reported prior use of hydroxychloroquine (527 [3.9%]) or ivermectin (440 [3.3%]). In regression models including sociodemographic features as well as political affiliation, those who endorsed at least 1 item of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation were more likely to receive non–evidence-based medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.86; 95% CI, 2.28-3.58). Those reporting trust in physicians and hospitals (adjusted OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98) and in scientists (adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) were less likely to receive non–evidence-based medication. Respondents reporting trust in social media (adjusted OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.00-2.87) and in Donald Trump (adjusted OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 2.34-3.78) were more likely to have taken non–evidence-based medication. Individuals with greater scores on the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale were more likely to have received non–evidence-based medications (unadjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; adjusted OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13). Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of US adults, endorsement of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of trust in physicians or scientists, conspiracy-mindedness, and the nature of news sources were associated with receiving non–evidence-based treatment for COVID-19. These results suggest that the potential harms of misinformation may extend to the use of ineffective and potentially toxic treatments in addition to avoidance of health-promoting behaviors.