Search

The COVID-19 pandemic, polarized politics, and heightened stigma and discrimination are salient drivers for negative mental health outcomes, particularly among marginalized racial and ethnic minoritized groups. Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, foreign-born status, and educational attainment may distinctively shape an individual's experience of discrimination and mental health during such unprecedented time. The present study examines the differential associations of racial discrimination and mental health based on an individual's race, ethnicity, foreign-born status, and educational attainment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were based on a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults collected between October and November 2021 (n = 6276). We utilized multivariable linear regressions to identify the multiplicative effects of race, ethnic, foreign-born status and self-reported racial discrimination on mental health, stratified by educational attainment. Among individuals with lower educational attainment, associations between racial discrimination and poor mental health were stronger among Asians (US-born: β = −2.07, p = 0.03; foreign-born: β = −3.18, p = 0.02) and US-born multiracial individuals (β = −1.96, p = 0.02) than their White counterparts. Among individuals with higher educational attainment, foreign-born Hispanics (β = − 3.66, p

Criminal legal system involvement (CLI) is a critical social determinant of health that lies at the intersection of multiple sources of health disparities. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates many of these disparities, and specific vulnerabilities faced by the CLI population. This study investigated the prevalence of COVID-19-related misinformation, as well as its relationship with COVID-19 information sources used among Americans experiencing CLI. A nationally representative sample of American adults aged 18+ (N = 1,161), including a subsample of CLI individuals (n = 168), were surveyed in February-March 2021. On a 10-item test, CLI participants endorsed a greater number of misinformation statements (M = 1.88 vs. 1.27) than non-CLI participants, p < .001. CLI participants reported less use of government and scientific sources (p = .017) and less use of personal sources (p = .003) for COVID-19 information than non-CLI participants. Poisson models showed that use of government and scientific sources was negatively associated with misinformation endorsement for non-CLI participants (IRR = .841, p < .001), but not for CLI participants (IRR = .957, p = .619). These findings suggest that building and leveraging trust in important information sources are critical to the containment and mitigation of COVID-19-related misinformation in the CLI population.

BackgroundSelf-reported questions on blindness and vision problems are collected in many national surveys. Recently released surveillance estimates on the prevalence of vision loss used self-reported data to predict variation in the prevalence of objectively measured acuity loss among population groups for whom examination data are not available. However, the validity of self-reported measures to predict prevalence and disparities in visual acuity has not been established. ObjectiveThis study aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of self-reported vision loss measures compared to best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), inform the design and selection of questions for future data collection, and identify the concordance between self-reported vision and measured acuity at the population level to support ongoing surveillance efforts. MethodsWe calculated accuracy and correlation between self-reported visual function versus BCVA at the individual and population level among patients from the University of Washington ophthalmology or optometry clinics with a prior eye examination, randomly oversampled for visual acuity loss or diagnosed eye diseases. Self-reported visual function was collected via telephone survey. BCVA was determined based on retrospective chart review. Diagnostic accuracy of questions at the person level was measured based on the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), whereas population-level accuracy was determined based on correlation. ResultsThe survey question, “Are you blind or do you have serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses?” had the highest accuracy for identifying patients with blindness (BCVA ≤20/200; AUC=0.797). The highest accuracy for detecting any vision loss (BCVA

Two parallel public health epidemics affecting the United States include the COVID-19 pandemic and a rise in substance use disorders (SUDs). Limited research has examined the potential relationship between these two epidemics. Our objective was therefore to perform an exploratory study in order to examine the association between public stigma toward people with a past history of opioid, methamphetamine, cocaine, and alcohol use disorder and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. A national sample of U.S. adults (N = 6515) completed a survey which assessed the degree of negative perceptions toward individuals with a past history of substance use disorders (referred to as substance use stigma) and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, along with variables such as racial prejudice, source of health news, and other demographics. We evaluated four multivariable logistic regression models to predict COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, utilizing substance use stigma toward opioids, methamphetamine, cocaine, and alcohol use as independent variables. We found that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was positively associated with substance use stigma toward opioid (AOR = 1.34, p < 0.05), methamphetamine (AOR = 1.40, p < 0.01), and cocaine (AOR = 1.28, p < 0.05) use, but not alcohol use (AOR = 1.06, n.s.). Predictive models that incorporate substance use stigma may therefore improve our ability to identify individuals that may benefit from vaccine hesitancy interventions. Future research to understand the underlying reasons behind the association between substance use stigma and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may help us to construct combined interventions which address belief systems that promote both substance use stigma and vaccine hesitancy.

Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif menekankan analisisnya pada data-data numerikal yang diolah dengan metode statistika. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisa pengaruh komponen Pendapatan Asli Daerah terhadap pengeluaran pemerintah dan menganalisa komponen Pendapatan Asli Daerah yang berpengaruh dominan terhadap pengeluaran pemerintah Kabupaten dan Kota di Provinsi Gorontalo. Hasil penelitian yang diperoleh yaitu Seluruh komponen Pendapatan Asli Daerah Kabupaten Dan Kota Di Provinsi Gorontalo yang meliputi Pajak Daerah, Retribusi Daerah, Hasil Pengelolaan Kekayaan Daerah Yang Dipisahkan, dan Lain-Lain Pendapatan Asli Daerah Yang Sah memiliki pengaruh yang positif dan signifikan terhadap pengeluaran pemerintah di daerah tersebut. Komponen Pendapatan Asli Daerah yang memiliki pengaruh dominan terhadap pengeluaran pemerintah Kabupaten Dan Kota Di Provinsi Gorontalo adalah Lain-Lain Pendapatan Asli Daerah Yang Sah.

Protective behaviors such as mask wearing and physical distancing are critical to slow the spread of COVID-19, even in the context of vaccine scale-up. Understanding the variation in self-reported COVID-19 protective behaviors is critical to developing public health messaging. The purpose of the study is to provide nationally representative estimates of five self-reported COVID-19 protective behaviors and correlates of such behaviors. In this cross-sectional survey study of US adults, surveys were administered via internet and telephone. Adults were surveyed from April 30-May 4, 2020, a time of peaking COVID-19 incidence within the US. Participants were recruited from the probability-based AmeriSpeak® national panel. Brief surveys were completed by 994 adults, with 73.0% of respondents reported mask wearing, 82.7% reported physical distancing, 75.1% reported crowd avoidance, 89.8% reported increased hand-washing, and 7.7% reported having prior COVID-19 testing. Multivariate analysis (p critical value .05) indicates that women were more likely to report protective behaviors than men, as were those over age 60. Respondents who self-identified as having low incomes, histories of criminal justice involvement, and Republican Party affiliation, were less likely to report four protective behaviors, though Republicans and individuals with criminal justice histories were more likely to report having received COVID-19 testing. The majority of Americans engaged in COVID-19 protective behaviors, with low-income Americans, those with histories of criminal justice involvement, and self-identified Republicans less likely to engage in these preventive behaviors. Culturally competent public health messaging and interventions might focus on these latter groups to prevent future infections. These findings will remain highly relevant even with vaccines widely available, given the complementarities between vaccines and protective behaviors, as well as the many challenges in delivering vaccines.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic may have influenced partner-seeking and sexual behaviors of adults., Methods: We examined cross-sectional survey data collected at the end of the first year (n = 1161) and second year (n = 1233) of the COVID-19 pandemic by the National Opinion Research Center's nationally representative, probability-based AmeriSpeak panel. Data were analyzed to (1) quantify behavioral changes across pandemic years, (2) examine changes of in-person dating prevalence during year 2, and (3) assess risk perception for acquiring COVID-19 or HIV/STIs through new partnerships during year 2. Weighted percentages were calculated for responses; univariate relationships between demographic characteristics and outcomes were assessed., Results: Prevalence of new partners for dating remained stable across pandemic years (year 1: n = 1157 [10%]; year 2: n = 1225 [12%]). The prevalence of in-person sex with new partners was also stable (year 1: n = 1157 [7%], year 2: n = 1225 [6%]), marking a decline from a prepandemic estimate (2015-2016: 16%). Partner-seeking experiences varied by age and sexual identity in both years, and by race/ethnicity during year 2. Reports of in-person dating fluctuated throughout year 2, without clear relationship to viral variants. Respondents who met new partners in person during year 2 generally reported greater concern and preparedness for reducing risks associated with HIV/STIs than COVID-19., Conclusions: The prevalence of US adults seeking new partners for dating or sex remained stable across pandemic years. During future public health emergencies, public health officials are encouraged to offer guidance for reducing disease risks in partnerships, while emphasizing sexual health and providing tailored messaging for persons more susceptible to infection., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest and Sources of Funding: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. This work was supported by HEAL's Justice Community Opioid Intervention Network's (JCOIN) Methodology and Advanced Analytics Research Center (U2CDA050098)., (Copyright © 2024 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association. All rights reserved.)

Background: Over 3 million Americans have an opioid use disorder (OUD), and only a fraction receive treatment. Public opinion is crucial in enacting evidence-based policies. Few studies have examined the public's perception of blame for the ongoing opioid overdose epidemic directed at distinct groups. We assessed US adults' perceived blameworthiness for the epidemic and examined factors that may influence the perceived blameworthiness., Methods: We conducted a national survey in 2022 using the AmeriSpeak® panel to assess US adults' perception of blame toward individuals with an OUD and external contributors. Of the 3335 eligible panel members invited to participate, 1233 (37%) completed the survey. We developed a measure of knowledge and understanding of OUD, with a higher value indicating a greater understanding of the nature of OUD and recovery-including knowledge and beliefs on evidence-based treatment and relapse. We analyzed the relationships between sources of blame, knowledge, and understanding of OUD, and individual-level correlates., Results: Higher score of knowledge and understanding of OUD was associated with lower odds of blaming individuals with OUD (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.51, 1.05]) and greater odds of blaming external contributors: healthcare providers (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = [1.05, 2.12]), pharmaceutical companies (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = [1.50, 3.15]), and health insurance companies (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = [0.97, 2.09]). Those who are female, non-Hispanic White, Democrat, have higher education, or have friends or family who misused opioids tended to score higher in knowledge and understanding of OUD., Conclusions: Perceived blameworthiness for the opioid overdose epidemic is related to knowledge and understanding of OUD. Public health campaigns with a bipartisan agenda to increase evidence-informed knowledge about OUD targeting people of color and with lower education may help reduce the blame toward people with an OUD, which in turn may increase support for evidence-informed policies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Two parallel public health epidemics affecting the United States include the COVID-19 pandemic and a rise in substance use disorders (SUDs). Limited research has examined the potential relationship between these two epidemics. Our objective was therefore to perform an exploratory study in order to examine the association between public stigma toward people with a past history of opioid, methamphetamine, cocaine, and alcohol use disorder and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. A national sample of U.S. adults (N = 6515) completed a survey which assessed the degree of negative perceptions toward individuals with a past history of substance use disorders (referred to as substance use stigma) and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, along with variables such as racial prejudice, source of health news, and other demographics. We evaluated four multivariable logistic regression models to predict COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, utilizing substance use stigma toward opioids, methamphetamine, cocaine, and alcohol use as independent variables. We found that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was positively associated with substance use stigma toward opioid (AOR = 1.34, p < 0.05), methamphetamine (AOR = 1.40, p < 0.01), and cocaine (AOR = 1.28, p < 0.05) use, but not alcohol use (AOR = 1.06, n.s.). Predictive models that incorporate substance use stigma may therefore improve our ability to identify individuals that may benefit from vaccine hesitancy interventions. Future research to understand the underlying reasons behind the association between substance use stigma and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may help us to construct combined interventions which address belief systems that promote both substance use stigma and vaccine hesitancy.

Background: Self-reported questions on blindness and vision problems are collected in many national surveys. Recently released surveillance estimates on the prevalence of vision loss used self-reported data to predict variation in the prevalence of objectively measured acuity loss among population groups for whom examination data are not available. However, the validity of self-reported measures to predict prevalence and disparities in visual acuity has not been established., Objective: This study aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of self-reported vision loss measures compared to best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), inform the design and selection of questions for future data collection, and identify the concordance between self-reported vision and measured acuity at the population level to support ongoing surveillance efforts., Methods: We calculated accuracy and correlation between self-reported visual function versus BCVA at the individual and population level among patients from the University of Washington ophthalmology or optometry clinics with a prior eye examination, randomly oversampled for visual acuity loss or diagnosed eye diseases. Self-reported visual function was collected via telephone survey. BCVA was determined based on retrospective chart review. Diagnostic accuracy of questions at the person level was measured based on the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), whereas population-level accuracy was determined based on correlation., Results: The survey question, "Are you blind or do you have serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses?" had the highest accuracy for identifying patients with blindness (BCVA ≤20/200; AUC=0.797). The highest accuracy for detecting any vision loss (BCVA <20/40) was achieved by responses of "fair," "poor," or "very poor" to the question, "At the present time, would you say your eyesight, with glasses or contact lenses if you wear them, is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor" (AUC=0.716). At the population level, the relative relationship between prevalence based on survey questions and BCVA remained stable for most demographic groups, with the only exceptions being groups with small sample sizes, and these differences were generally not significant., Conclusions: Although survey questions are not considered to be sufficiently accurate to be used as a diagnostic test at the individual level, we did find relatively high levels of accuracy for some questions. At the population level, we found that the relative prevalence of the 2 most accurate survey questions were highly correlated with the prevalence of measured visual acuity loss among nearly all demographic groups. The results of this study suggest that self-reported vision questions fielded in national surveys are likely to yield an accurate and stable signal of vision loss across different population groups, although the actual measure of prevalence from these questions is not directly analogous to that of BCVA., (©John Wittenborn, Aaron Lee, Elizabeth A Lundeen, Phoebe Lamuda, Jinan Saaddine, Grace L Su, Randy Lu, Aashka Damani, Jonathan S Zawadzki, Colin P Froines, Jolie Z Shen, Timothy-Paul H Kung, Ryan T Yanagihara, Morgan Maring, Melissa M Takahashi, Marian Blazes, David B Rein. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 07.03.2023.)

Background: Opioid overdose rates have steadily been increasing in the United States (US) creating what is considered an overdose death crisis. The US has a mixture of public health and punitive policies aimed to address opioid use and the overdose crisis, yet little is known about public opinion relating to opioid use and policy support. Understanding the intersection of public opinion about opioid use disorder (OUD) and policy can be useful for developing interventions to address policy responses to overdose deaths., Methods: A national sample of cross-sectional data from the AmeriSpeak survey conducted from 27 February 2020 through 2 March 2020 was analyzed. Measures included attitudes toward OUD and policy beliefs. Latent class analysis, a person-centered approach, was used to identify groups of individuals endorsing similar stigma and policy beliefs. We then examined the relationship between the identified groups (i.e., classes) and key behavioral and demographic factors., Results: We identified three distinct groups: (1) "High Stigma/High Punitive Policy", (2) "High Stigma/Mixed Public Health and Punitive Policy", and (3) "Low Stigma/High Public Health Policy". People with higher levels of education had reduced odds of being in the "High Stigma/High Punitive Policy" group., Conclusion: Public health policies are most effective in addressing OUD. We suggest targeting interventions toward the "High Stigma/Mixed Public Health and Punitive Policy" group since this group already displays some support for public health policies. Broader interventions, such as eliminating stigmatizing messaging in the media and redacting punitive policies, could reduce OUD stigma among all groups.

Political affiliation, racial attitudes, and opioid stigma influence public support for public health responses to address opioid use disorders (OUD). Prior studies suggest public perceptions of the opioid epidemic are less racialized and less politically polarized than were public perceptions of the crack cocaine epidemic. Analyzing a cross-sectional, nationally representative sample (n = 1161 U.S. adults) from the October 2020 AmeriSpeak survey, we explored how political affiliation, racial attitudes (as captured in the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale [CoBRAS]), and OUD stigma were associated with respondents' expressed views regarding four critical domains. Respondents with unfavorable attitudes towards Black Americans were less likely to support expanding Medicaid funding, increasing government spending to provide services for people living with OUD, and distributing naloxone for overdose prevention. Democratic Party affiliation was associated with greater support for all three of the above measures, and increased support for mandatory treatment, which may be seen as a substitute for more punitive interventions. Black respondents were also less likely to support expanding Medicaid funding, increasing government spending to provide services for people living with OUD, and of distributing naloxone. Our finding suggest that negative attitudes towards African-Americans and political differences remain important factors of public opinion on responding to the OUD epidemic, even after controlling for opioid stigma. Our findings also suggest that culturally-competent dialogue within politically conservative and Black communities may be important to engage public support for evidence-informed treatment and prevention., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)