Search

While the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. population health has been devastating, it has not affected everyone equally. The risks of hospitalization and death from the disease are relatively low for the population as a whole, but much higher for specific subpopulations defined by age, health status, and race or ethnicity. The extent to which Americans perceive these disparities is an open question, with potentially important political implications. Recognition of unequal impacts may prime concerns about justice and fairness, making Americans more concerned and willing to support government intervention. On the other hand, belief that the pandemic primarily threatens "other people" or out-groups may reduce, rather than increase, a person's concern. Partisanship and media consumption habits are also likely to play a role in these perceptions, as they do in most issues related to COVID-19. In this paper, we use original survey data from the Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000) to explore Americans' perceptions of which groups are most harmed by the pandemic, the demographic and political determinants of these perceptions, and the relationship of these perceptions with their opinions about COVID-related mitigation policy. We find that, on average, people perceived accurately that certain groups (e.g., Black Americans, older people) were more affected, but these group perceptions varied by demographic and political characteristics of respondents. We find, in contrast with recent experimental evidence, that the perception that populations of color were harmed was associated with more support for pandemic mitigation strategies. More research should investigate the relationships among pandemic politics and the racial dynamics of the target populations most affected. • In fall 2020, survey participants recognized groups harmed by COVID based on age. • They had lower recognition of racial groups harmed, lowest for Native Americans. • Perceptions of groups harmed varies by information exposure and politics. • Perceiving group disparities was associated with more support for pandemic policy. • The racial dynamics surrounding the politics of COVID-19 requires more attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All individuals are subject to multiple risk factors for mortality. In this paper, we consider the nature of interactions between certain major sociodemographic and behavioral risk factors associated with all-cause mortality in the United States. We develop the formal logic pertaining to two forms of interaction between risk factors, additive and multiplicative relations. We then consider the general circumstances in which additive or multiplicative relations might be expected. We argue that expectations about interactions among socio-demographic variables, and their relation to behavioral variables, have been stated in terms of additivity. However, the statistical models typically used to estimate the relation between risk factors and mortality assume that risk factors act multiplicatively. We examine empirically the nature of interactions among five major risk factors associated with all-cause mortality: smoking, obesity, race, sex, and educational attainment. Data were drawn from the cross-sectional NHANES III (1988–1994) and NHANES 1999–2010 surveys, linked to death records through December 31, 2011. Our analytic sample comprised 35,604 respondents and 5369 deaths. We find that obesity is additive with each of the remaining four variables. We speculate that its additivity is a reflection of the fact that obese status is generally achieved later in life. For all pairings of socio-demographic variables, risks are multiplicative. For survival chances, it is much more dangerous to be poorly educated if you are black or if you are male. And it is much riskier to be a male if you are black. These traits, established at birth or during childhood, literally result in deadly combinations. We conclude that the identification of interactions among risk factors can cast valuable light on the nature of the process being studied. It also has public health implications by identifying especially vulnerable groups and by properly identifying the proportion of deaths attributable to a risk factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social scientists have long demonstrated that socioeconomic resources benefit health. More recently, scholars have begun to examine the potential stratification in the health returns different groups receive for a given resource. Motivated by fundamental cause theory, this paper examines homeownership as a salient health resource with potentially stratified benefits. Homeowners have significantly greater housing quality, wealth, neighborhood quality and integration, and physical and mental health than renters. However, there are compelling theoretical reasons to expect the health advantage of homeownership to be unequally distributed across racial and ethnic groups. Regression analyses of 71,874 household heads in the United States from the 2012 March Current Population Survey initially suggest all homeowners experience a significant health advantage. Further examination finds robust evidence for a homeowner health advantage among Whites, on par with the difference between the married and divorced. The advantage among minority households is considerably smaller, and not significant among Latinos or Asians. Conditioning on a broad array of observable characteristics, White homeowners emerge as exceptionally healthy compared to White renters and all minority groups. This leads to the unexpected finding that racial/ethnic differences in health are concentrated among homeowners. The findings demonstrate the interactive nature of racial/ethnic stratification in health through both access to and returns from socioeconomic resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonwhite patients are less likely than white patients to have their pain adequately treated. This study examined the influence of patient race and patient verbal and nonverbal behavior on primary care physicians'' treatment decisions for chronic low back pain in men. We randomly assigned physicians to receive a paper-based, clinical vignette of a chronic pain patient that differed in terms of patient race (white vs. black), verbal behavior (“challenging” vs. “non-challenging”), and nonverbal behavior (confident vs. dejected vs. angry). We employed a between-subjects factorial design and surveyed primary care physicians (N =382), randomly selected from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The primary dependent measure was the physician's decision as to whether (s)he would switch the patient to a higher dose or stronger type of opioid. Logistic regression was used to determine the effects of patient characteristics on physicians'' prescribing decisions. There was a significant interaction between patient verbal behavior and patient race on physicians'' decisions to prescribe opioids. Among black patients, physicians were significantly more likely to state that they would switch to a higher dose or stronger opioid for patients exhibiting “challenging” behaviors (e.g., demanding a specific narcotic, exhibiting anger) compared to those exhibiting “non-challenging” behaviors (55.1%). For white patients there was an opposite pattern of results in which physicians were slightly more likely to escalate treatment for patients exhibiting “non-challenging” (64.3%) vs. “challenging” (54.5%) verbal behaviors. Results point to the need for better understanding of the way a complex interplay of non-clinical characteristics affects physician behavior in order to improve quality of pain management and other clinical decision-making. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]