If you build it, will they come? Social, economic, and psychological determinants of COVID-19 testing decisions.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
09
12
2020
accepted:
20
05
2021
entrez:
14
7
2021
pubmed:
15
7
2021
medline:
23
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The efficacy of testing and tracing programs to reduce COVID-19 transmission hinges not only on widespread access to testing, but also on the public's willingness to participate in them. To the extent that testing intentions are patterned by social determinants of health, this constitutes an understudied mechanism of disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Using data from a representative household probability sample, the Person to Person Health Interview Study (n = 935), sociodemographic, economic, and psychological determinants of testing considerations were evaluated across six domains: treatment affordability, ability to work if positive, hospital effectiveness, symptom severity, proximity to infected, and risk of transmitting to others. Findings demonstrated significant differences in testing motivations across race/ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic status, and worry about self and loved ones. Notably, Black (p<0.01) and Latino (p<0.05) respondents and those experiencing financial strain (p<0.001) were disproportionately likely to indicate that resource factors would influence their decision to get tested. Desire to reduce transmission and concern about proximity to the infected were reported among those who expressed COVID-19 worries (p<0.001). Public health efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic must address social, economic, and psychological factors that enable and constrain individual behavior. Increasing access to preventative interventions and technologies, including vaccines, is unlikely to markedly reduce morbidity and mortality without effective messaging and economic support to improve uptake in vulnerable populations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of testing and tracing programs to reduce COVID-19 transmission hinges not only on widespread access to testing, but also on the public's willingness to participate in them. To the extent that testing intentions are patterned by social determinants of health, this constitutes an understudied mechanism of disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.
DESIGN
Using data from a representative household probability sample, the Person to Person Health Interview Study (n = 935), sociodemographic, economic, and psychological determinants of testing considerations were evaluated across six domains: treatment affordability, ability to work if positive, hospital effectiveness, symptom severity, proximity to infected, and risk of transmitting to others.
RESULTS
Findings demonstrated significant differences in testing motivations across race/ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic status, and worry about self and loved ones. Notably, Black (p<0.01) and Latino (p<0.05) respondents and those experiencing financial strain (p<0.001) were disproportionately likely to indicate that resource factors would influence their decision to get tested. Desire to reduce transmission and concern about proximity to the infected were reported among those who expressed COVID-19 worries (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
Public health efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic must address social, economic, and psychological factors that enable and constrain individual behavior. Increasing access to preventative interventions and technologies, including vaccines, is unlikely to markedly reduce morbidity and mortality without effective messaging and economic support to improve uptake in vulnerable populations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34260602
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252658
pii: PONE-D-20-38681
pmc: PMC8279331
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0252658Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Feb;270:113684
pubmed: 33485008
Am J Public Health. 2021 May;111(5):778-781
pubmed: 33826385
Lancet Public Health. 2021 Mar;6(3):e175-e183
pubmed: 33484644
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Jul;39(7):1253-1262
pubmed: 32437224
Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2020 Dec;12(4):1183-1204
pubmed: 32981212
Pediatrics. 2020 Oct;146(4):
pubmed: 32764151
Demography. 2022 Jun 1;59(3):827-855
pubmed: 35583671
Am J Prev Med. 2020 Sep;59(3):317-325
pubmed: 32703701
Front Psychol. 2021 Jan 13;11:577331
pubmed: 33519593
J Econ Race Policy. 2020;3(4):243-261
pubmed: 35300199
JAMA. 2020 Jul 21;324(3):227-228
pubmed: 32530457
Psychol Rev. 2017 Mar;124(2):179-196
pubmed: 28221086
Am J Prev Med. 2020 Sep;59(3):326-332
pubmed: 32703702
JAMA. 2020 Jul 28;324(4):337-338
pubmed: 32597963
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Feb 16;72(4):703-706
pubmed: 32562416
Front Psychol. 2021 Mar 22;12:579164
pubmed: 33828501
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Aug;5(8):e452-e459
pubmed: 32682487
Proc Biol Sci. 2020 Aug 12;287(1932):20201405
pubmed: 32781946
Lancet Public Health. 2020 May;5(5):e249-e250
pubmed: 32302535
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Jan;4(1):14-19
pubmed: 31932690
Am J Prev Med. 2020 Aug;59(2):157-167
pubmed: 32576418
Am J Public Health. 2021 May;111(5):917-922
pubmed: 33734850
Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 4;12(1):29
pubmed: 33397962
BMJ. 2021 Feb 26;372:n513
pubmed: 33637577
Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 16;12:577992
pubmed: 33664691
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Sep;39(9):1624-1632
pubmed: 32663045