Search

Background and Aims: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gambling participation and levels of gambling harm across populations during the pandemic is now addressed in a well-established body of empirical literature. This study aimed to measure the longer-term implications of COVID-19 on gambling participation and levels of gambling harm., Design: Population-based cohort study using group-based trajectory modelling., Setting: Australia, using gambling participation, problem gambling risk, sociodemographic and psychosocial data from 2019 (pre COVID-19), 2020, 2021 (during COVID-19) and 2023 (post COVID-19)., Participants: A population representative survey of Australian adults, including four waves collected in April 2019 (n = 2054), November 2020 (n = 3029), October 2021 (n = 3474) and January 2023 (n = 3370), with a subset (n = 3160) of the sample having longitudinal data available., Measurements: Participants were asked which gambling activities they participated in over the past 12 months for money. Problem gambling risk was measured by the nine-item Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI)., Findings: There was an overall reduction in gambling participation during COVID-19 and return to pre-pandemic levels for most gambling activities by 2023. The longitudinal analysis yielded four trajectories of gambling participation from 2019 to 2023, including individuals who (1) never gambled (25.0% of the longitudinal sample; n = 789); (2) engaged in non-problematic gambling (59.8%; n = 1888); (3) ceased gambling during COVID-19 and started again post pandemic (10.7%; n = 337); and (4) engaged in high risk gambling (4.6%; n = 146), with particular demographic and psychosocial profiles and patterns of participation in specific gambling activities related to these trajectories., Conclusions: Although overall gambling participation rates decreased at the population level in Australia during COVID-19, by 2023 participation in gambling appeared to have nearly returned to pre-pandemic levels. Patterns of gambling behavior before, during and after the pandemic appear to be heterogeneous., (© 2024 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Objective: In Australia, first and second compared to third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were implemented under different policies and contexts, resulting in greater discretion in decisions to receive a third compared to first and second dose. We quantified socio-economic inequalities in first and third dose to understand how discretion is associated with differences in uptake., Study Design: Whole-of-population cohort study., Methods: Linked immunisation, census, death and migration data were used to estimate weekly proportions who received first and third doses of a COVID-19 vaccine until 31 August 2022 for those with low (no formal qualification) compared to high (university degree) education, stratified by 10-year age group (from 30 to 89 years). We estimated relative rates using Cox regression, including adjustment for sociodemographic factors., Results: Among 13.1 million people in our study population, 94% had received a first and 80% a third dose by 31 August 2022. Rates of uptake of first and third dose were around 50% lower for people with low compared to high education. Gaps were small in absolute terms for first dose, and at the end of the study period ranged from 1 to 11 percentage points across age groups. However, gaps were substantial for third dose, particularly at younger ages where the socio-economic gap was as wide as 32 percentage-points., Conclusion: Education-related inequalities in uptake were larger where discretion in decisions was larger. Policies that limited discretion in decisions to receive vaccines may have contributed to achieving the dual aims of maximising uptake and minimising inequalities., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A large-scale crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, has the potential to affect non-response in cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys. This study utilises a longitudinal survey, conducted prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, to examine the factors associated with participation in longitudinal surveys during the COVID-19 period, and how this has changed from prior to the pandemic. We find that a number of demographic groups are more likely to be non-responders to COVID-19 surveys, despite having completed pre-COVID surveys, as well as a number of other economic and personality factors. Reassuringly though, there were many more factors that did not have an association. The findings also highlight that two simple questions (with a low time cost) on subjective survey experience early in the pandemic were highly useful in predicting future survey participation. These findings can help to support survey practitioners and data collection companies to develop more robust response improvement strategies during the COVID-19 period.

Individuals throughout the world are being recruited into studies to examine the social impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While previous literature has illustrated how research participation can impact distress and wellbeing, to the authors' best knowledge no study has examined this in the COVID-19 context. Using an innovative approach, this study analyses the impacts of participation in a COVID-19 survey in Australia on subjective wellbeing through a survey experiment. At a population level, we find no evidence that participation impacts subjective wellbeing. However, this may not hold for those with mental health concerns and those living in financial insecurity. These findings provide the research community with a deeper understanding of the potential wellbeing impacts from COVID-19-related research participation.

Background: High levels of vaccination coverage in populations will be required even with vaccines that have high levels of effectiveness to prevent and stop outbreaks of coronavirus. The World Health Organisation has suggested that governments take a proactive response to vaccine hesitancy 'hotspots' based on social and behavioural insights., Methods: Representative longitudinal online survey of over 3000 adults from Australia that examines the demographic, attitudinal, political and social attitudes and COVID-19 health behavior correlates of vaccine hesitance and resistance to a COVID-19 vaccine., Results: Overall, 59% would definitely get the vaccine, 29% had low levels of hesitancy, 7% had high levels of hesitancy and 6% were resistant. Females, those living in disadvantaged areas, those who reported that risks of COVID-19 was overstated, those who had more populist views and higher levels of religiosity were more likely to be hesitant or resistant while those who had higher levels of household income, those who had higher levels of social distancing, who downloaded the COVID-Safe App, who had more confidence in their state or territory government or confidence in their hospitals, or were more supportive of migration were more likely to intend to get vaccinated., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that vaccine hesitancy, which accounts for a significant proportion of the population can be addressed by public health messaging but for a significant minority of the population with strongly held beliefs, alternative policy measures may well be needed to achieve sufficient vaccination coverage to end the pandemic., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.