Employment conditions as barriers to the adoption of COVID-19 mitigation measures: how the COVID-19 pandemic may be deepening health disparities among low-income earners and essential workers in the United States.

COVID-19 Economic precarity Employment conditions Essential workers Health Belief Model Health disparities Precarious employment Risk of infection Social determinants of health

Journal

BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 05 2022
Historique:
received: 20 10 2021
accepted: 20 04 2022
entrez: 3 5 2022
pubmed: 4 5 2022
medline: 6 5 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted economically-disadvantaged populations in the United States (US). Precarious employment conditions may contribute to these disparities by impeding workers in such conditions from adopting COVID-19 mitigation measures to reduce infection risk. This study investigated the relationship between employment and economic conditions and the adoption of COVID-19 protective behaviors among US workers during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Employing a social media advertisement campaign, an online, self-administered survey was used to collect data from 2,845 working adults in April 2020. Hierarchical generalized linear models were performed to assess the differences in engagement with recommended protective behaviors based on employment and economic conditions, while controlling for knowledge and perceived threat of COVID-19, as would be predicted by the Health Belief Model (HBM). Essential workers had more precarious employment and economic conditions than non-essential workers: 67% had variable income; 30% did not have paid sick leave; 42% had lost income due to COVID-19, and 15% were food insecure. The adoption of protective behaviors was high in the sample: 77% of participants avoided leaving home, and 93% increased hand hygiene. Consistent with the HBM, COVID-19 knowledge scores and perceived threat were positively associated with engaging in all protective behaviors. However, after controlling for these, essential workers were 60% and 70% less likely than non-essential workers, who by the nature of their jobs cannot stay at home, to stay at home and increase hand hygiene, respectively. Similarly, participants who could not afford to quarantine were 50% less likely to avoid leaving home (AOR: 0.5; 95% CI: 0.4, 0.6) than those who could, whereas there were no significant differences concerning hand hygiene. Our findings are consistent with the accumulating evidence that the employment conditions of essential workers and other low-income earners are precarious, that they have experienced disproportionately higher rates of income loss during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and face significant barriers to adopting protective measures. Our findings underscore the importance and need of policy responses focusing on expanding social protection and benefits to prevent the further deepening of existing health disparities in the US.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted economically-disadvantaged populations in the United States (US). Precarious employment conditions may contribute to these disparities by impeding workers in such conditions from adopting COVID-19 mitigation measures to reduce infection risk. This study investigated the relationship between employment and economic conditions and the adoption of COVID-19 protective behaviors among US workers during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
Employing a social media advertisement campaign, an online, self-administered survey was used to collect data from 2,845 working adults in April 2020. Hierarchical generalized linear models were performed to assess the differences in engagement with recommended protective behaviors based on employment and economic conditions, while controlling for knowledge and perceived threat of COVID-19, as would be predicted by the Health Belief Model (HBM).
RESULTS
Essential workers had more precarious employment and economic conditions than non-essential workers: 67% had variable income; 30% did not have paid sick leave; 42% had lost income due to COVID-19, and 15% were food insecure. The adoption of protective behaviors was high in the sample: 77% of participants avoided leaving home, and 93% increased hand hygiene. Consistent with the HBM, COVID-19 knowledge scores and perceived threat were positively associated with engaging in all protective behaviors. However, after controlling for these, essential workers were 60% and 70% less likely than non-essential workers, who by the nature of their jobs cannot stay at home, to stay at home and increase hand hygiene, respectively. Similarly, participants who could not afford to quarantine were 50% less likely to avoid leaving home (AOR: 0.5; 95% CI: 0.4, 0.6) than those who could, whereas there were no significant differences concerning hand hygiene.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings are consistent with the accumulating evidence that the employment conditions of essential workers and other low-income earners are precarious, that they have experienced disproportionately higher rates of income loss during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and face significant barriers to adopting protective measures. Our findings underscore the importance and need of policy responses focusing on expanding social protection and benefits to prevent the further deepening of existing health disparities in the US.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35501740
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13259-w
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13259-w
pmc: PMC9058755
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

870

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Aug;103(2):920-921
pubmed: 32534600
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr;5(4):e186-e187
pubmed: 32171054
Int J Behav Med. 2009;16(1):30-40
pubmed: 19125335
Am J Ind Med. 2021 Apr;64(4):238-244
pubmed: 33522627
Occup Environ Med. 2020 Dec 9;:
pubmed: 33298533
Vaccine. 2017 Jan 23;35(4):508-512
pubmed: 28040206
JAMA. 2020 Jun 2;323(21):2192-2195
pubmed: 32347898
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 13;20(1):116
pubmed: 32404050
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Jul 13;14(7):e0008484
pubmed: 32658925
J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51 Suppl:S28-40
pubmed: 20943581
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Sep;39(9):1624-1632
pubmed: 32663045
Health Educ Q. 1984 Spring;11(1):1-47
pubmed: 6392204
Br J Soc Psychol. 2020 Jul;59(3):674-685
pubmed: 32583423
J Educ Health Promot. 2013 May 30;2:23
pubmed: 24083273
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Aug 28;19(8):e290
pubmed: 28851679
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 9;376(10):947-956
pubmed: 28273021
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 23;18(6):
pubmed: 33806763
J Health Commun. 2007 Apr-May;12(3):217-32
pubmed: 17497377
Int J Health Serv. 2021 Apr;51(2):125-134
pubmed: 33686890
Health Educ Q. 1988 Summer;15(2):175-83
pubmed: 3378902
Med Care. 2018 Feb;56(2):186-192
pubmed: 29271819
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 4;16(6):e0252454
pubmed: 34086762
Infect Dis Poverty. 2020 Nov 17;9(1):157
pubmed: 33203453
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018 Jul 3;14(7):1665-1671
pubmed: 29333950
Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Mar-Apr;21(2):60-76
pubmed: 11900187
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 May 8;6(2):e19161
pubmed: 32369759
SSM Popul Health. 2020 Aug;11:100615
pubmed: 32572381
Health Commun. 2015;30(6):566-76
pubmed: 25010519
Sci Adv. 2020 Oct 14;6(42):
pubmed: 32948511
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 19;18(10):
pubmed: 34069438
Front Public Health. 2021 Apr 06;9:581497
pubmed: 33889557

Auteurs

Ariadna Capasso (A)

Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, USA.

Sooyoung Kim (S)

Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, USA.

Shahmir H Ali (SH)

Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, USA.

Abbey M Jones (AM)

Department of Epidemiology, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, USA.

Ralph J DiClemente (RJ)

Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, USA.

Yesim Tozan (Y)

Global and Environmental Health Program, School of Global Public Health, New York University, 708 Broadway, New York, 10003, USA. tozan@nyu.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH