Dataset Information

Attitudes About COVID-19 and Health (ATTACH): Online Survey and Mixed Methods Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Behavioral mitigation strategies to slow the spread of COVID-19 have resulted in sweeping lifestyle changes, with short- and long-term psychological, well-being, and quality of life implications. The Attitudes About COVID-19 and Health (ATTACH) study focuses on understanding attitudes and beliefs while considering the impact on mental and physical health and the influence of broader demographic and geographic factors on attitudes, beliefs, and mental health burden.

Objective

In this assessment of our first wave of data collection, we provide baseline cohort description of the ATTACH study participants in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Mexico. Additionally, we assess responses to daily poll questions related to COVID-19 and conduct a cross-sectional analysis of baseline assessments collected in the UK between June 26 and October 31, 2020.

Methods

The ATTACH study uses smartphone app technology and online survey data collection. Participants completed poll questions related to COVID-19 2 times daily and a monthly survey assessing mental health, social isolation, physical health, and quality of life. Poll question responses were graphed using 95% Clopper-Pearson (exact) tests with 95% CIs. Pearson correlations, hierarchical linear regression analyses, and generalized linear models assessed relationships, predictors of self-reported outcomes, and group differences, respectively.

Results

By October 31, 2020, 1405, 80, and 90 participants had consented to participate in the UK, United States, and Mexico, respectively. Descriptive data for the UK daily poll questions indicated that participants generally followed social distancing measures, but worry and negative impacts on families increased as the pandemic progressed. Although participants generally reported feeling that the reasons for current measures had been made clear, there was low trust that the government was doing everything in its power to meet public needs. In the UK, 1282 participants also completed a monthly survey (94.99% [1326/1396] White, 72.22% [1014/1404] female, and 20.12% [277/1377] key or essential workers); 18.88% (242/1282) of UK participants reported a preexisting mental health disorder, 31.36% (402/1282) reported a preexisting chronic medical illness, and 35.11% (493/1404) were aged over 65; 57.72% (740/1282) of participants reported being more sedentary since the pandemic began, and 41.89% (537/1282) reported reduced access to medical care. Those with poorer mental health outcomes lived in more deprived neighborhoods, in larger households (Ps<.05), had more preexisting mental health disorders and medical conditions, and were younger than 65 years (all Ps<.001).

Conclusions

Communities who have been exposed to additional harm during the COVID-19 pandemic were experiencing worse mental outcomes. Factors including having a medical condition, or living in a deprived neighborhood or larger household were associated with heightened risk. Future longitudinal studies should investigate the link between COVID-19 exposure, mental health, and sociodemographic and residential characteristics.

SUBMITTER: Hood AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8500353 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe UK began delivering its COVID-19 vaccination programme on 8 December 2020, with health and social care workers (H&SCWs) given high priority for vaccination. Despite well-documented occupational exposure risks, however, there is evidence of lower uptake among some H&SCW groups.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods approach-involving an online cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews-to gain insight into COVID-19 vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours amongst H&SCWs in the UK by socio-demographic and employment variables. 1917 people were surveyed- 1656 healthcare workers (HCWs) and 261 social care workers (SCWs). Twenty participants were interviewed.FindingsWorkplace factors contributed to vaccination access and uptake. SCWs were more likely to not be offered COVID-19 vaccination than HCWs (OR:1.453, 95%CI: 1.244-1.696). SCWs specifically reported uncertainties around how to access COVID-19 vaccination. Participants who indicated stronger agreement with the statement 'I would recommend my organisation as a place to work' were more likely to have been offered COVID-19 vaccination (OR:1.285, 95%CI: 1.056-1.563). Those who agreed more strongly with the statement 'I feel/felt under pressure from my employer to get a COVID-19 vaccine' were more likely to have declined vaccination (OR:1.751, 95%CI: 1.271-2.413). Interviewees that experienced employer pressure to get vaccinated felt this exacerbated their vaccine concerns and increased distrust. In comparison to White British and White Irish participants, Black African and Mixed Black African participants were more likely to not be offered (OR:2.011, 95%CI: 1.026-3.943) and more likely to have declined COVID-19 vaccination (OR:5.550, 95%CI: 2.294-13.428). Reasons for declining vaccination among Black African participants included distrust in COVID-19 vaccination, healthcare providers, and policymakers.ConclusionH&SCW employers are in a pivotal position to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination access, by ensuring staff are aware of how to get vaccinated and promoting a workplace environment in which vaccination decisions are informed and voluntary.

Project description:Efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 rely on trust in public health organizations and practices. These practices include contact tracing, which requires people to share personal information with public health organizations. The central role of trust in these practices has gained more attention during the pandemic, resurfacing endemic questions about public trust and potential racial trust disparities, especially as they relate to participation in public health efforts. Using an explanatory mixed methods design, we conducted quantitative analysis of state-level survey data in the United States from a representative sample of Michigan residents (n = 1000) in May 2020. We used unadjusted and adjusted linear regressions to examine differences in trust in public health information and willingness to participate in public health efforts by race. From July to September 2020, we conducted qualitative interviews (n = 26) to further explain quantitative results. Using unadjusted linear regression, we observed higher willingness to participate in COVID-19 public health efforts among Black survey respondents compared to White respondents. In adjusted analysis, that difference disappeared, yielding no statistically significant difference between Black and White respondents in either trust in public health information sources or willingness to participate. Qualitative interviews were conducted to explain these findings, considering their contrast with assumptions that Black people would exhibit lower trust in public health organizations during COVID-19. Altruism, risk acknowledgement, trust in public health organizations during COVID-19, and belief in efficacy of public health efforts contributed to willingness to participate in public health efforts among interviewees. Our findings underscore the contextual nature of trust, and the importance of this context when analyzing protective health behaviors among communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Assumptions about mistrust among Black individuals and communities may be inaccurate because they overlook the specific context of the public health crisis. These findings are important because they indicate that Black respondents are exhibiting strategic trust during COVID-19 despite systemic, contemporary, and historic barriers to trust. Conceptual specificity rather than blanket generalizations is warranted, especially given the harms of stereotyping and discrimination.

Project description:ObjectivesAlthough the vast majority of COVID-19 cases are treated in primary care, patients' experiences during home isolation have been little studied. This study aimed to explore the experiences of patients with acute COVID-19 and to identify challenges after the initial adaptation of the German health system to the pandemic (after first infection wave from February to June 2020).MethodsA mixed-method convergent design was used to gain a holistic insight into patients experience. The study consisted of a cross-sectional survey, open survey answers and semi-structured telephone interviews. Descriptive analysis was performed on quantitative survey answers. Between group differences were calculated to explore changes after the first infection wave. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on open survey answers and interviews. The results were then compared within a triangulation protocol.ResultsA total of 1100 participants from all German states were recruited by 145 general practitioners from August 2020 to April 2021, 42 additionally took part in qualitative interviews. Disease onset varied from February 2020 to April 2021. After the first infection wave, more participants were tested positive during the acute disease (88.8%; 95.2%; P < 0.001). Waiting times for tests (mean 4.5 days, SD 4.1; 2.7days, SD 2.6, P < 0.001) and test results (mean 2.4 days, SD 1.9; 1.8 days, SD 1.3, P < 0.001) decreased. Qualitative results indicated that the availability of repeated testing and antigen tests reduced insecurities, transmission and related guilt. Although personal consultations at general practices increased (6.8%; 15.5%, P < 0.001), telephone consultation remained the main mode of consultation (78.5%) and video remained insignificant (1.9%). The course of disease, the living situation and social surroundings during isolation, access to health care, personal resilience, spirituality and feelings of guilt and worries emerged as themes influencing the illness experience. Challenges were contact management and adequate provision of care during home isolation. A constant contact person within the health system helped against feelings of care deprivation, uncertainty and fear.ConclusionsOur study highlights that home isolation of individuals with COVID-19 requires a holistic approach that considers all aspects of patient care and effective coordination between different care providers.

Project description:BackgroundWhile several safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines have been available since December 2020, many eligible individuals choose to remain unvaccinated. This vaccine hesitancy is an important factor affecting our ability to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe objective of the study was to examine the attitudes and willingness among US Veterans toward receiving COVID-19 vaccination. The study used a quantitative qualitative mixed methods design with a telephone survey and then in-depth interviews in a subset of those surveyed. Participants were unvaccinated Veterans (N = 184) selected randomly from a registry of patients who had received VA healthcare during the pandemic and had a diagnostic test for COVID-19. The primary outcome was willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccination. Survey data collection and in-depth interviews were conducted by telephone. Analyses of the survey data compared the primary outcome with demographics, clinical data, and survey responses using bivariate and multiple regression analyses. A subset (N = 10) of those surveyed, participated in an in-depth interview. Interview transcripts were analyzed to derive themes using qualitative content analysis.ResultsAlmost 40% of participants disagreed they would receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Participants who were younger, female, and had fewer comorbid conditions were more likely (P < 0.05) to disagree with COVID-19 vaccination. In multiple regression analysis, willingness to accept vaccination was associated with reliance on a doctor or family member's recommendation and with a belief that vaccines are effective. In-depth interviews revealed several barriers to COVID-19 vaccination, including lack of trust in the government and vaccine manufacturers, concerns about the speed of vaccine development, fear of side effects, and fear the vaccine was a tool of racism.ConclusionsThis study illustrates the complexity of patients' deliberation about COVID-19 vaccination and may help physicians and other health care providers understand patients' perspectives about COVID-19 vaccination. The results highlight the importance of patients' trust in physicians, healthcare organizations, pharmaceutical manufacturers and the government when making health decisions.

Project description:BackgroundLittle research is available regarding vaccination attitudes among those recently diagnosed with COVID-19. This is important to investigate, particularly among those experiencing mild-to-moderate illness, given the ongoing need to improve uptake of both initial vaccine series and booster doses, and the divergent ways such an experience could impact attitudes.MethodsFrom September 3 - November 12, 2021, all patients enrolled in Baylor Scott & White's "COVID-19 Digital Care Journey for Home Monitoring" were invited to participate in an online survey that included questions about vaccination status and attitudes/opinions regarding COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines. Following an item asking about accordance of COVID-19 vaccination with religious/personal beliefs, participants were asked to describe those beliefs and how they relate to taking/not taking the vaccine.ResultsOf 8,075 patients age ≥ 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 and invited to join the survey during the study period, 3242 (40.2%) were fully vaccinated. In contrast, among the 149 who completed the questionnaire, 95(63.8%) reported full vaccination. Responses differed significantly between vaccination groups. The vaccinated group strongly agreed that COVID-19 is a major public health problem, the vaccines are safe and effective, and their decision to vaccinate included considering community benefit. The unvaccinated group responded neutrally to most questions addressing safety and public health aspects of the vaccine, while strongly disagreeing with statements regarding vaccine effectiveness and other preventative public health measures. The vaccinated group strongly agreed that taking the vaccine accorded with their religious/personal beliefs, while the unvaccinated group was neutral. In qualitative analysis of the free text responses "risk perception/calculation" and "no impact" of religious/personal beliefs on vaccination decisions were frequent themes/subthemes in both groups, but beliefs related to the "greater good" were a strong driver among the vaccinated, while statements emphasizing "individual choice" were a third frequent theme for the unvaccinated.ConclusionOur results show that two of the three factors that drive vaccine hesitancy (complacency, and lack of confidence in the vaccines) are present among unvaccinated adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19. They also show that beliefs emphasizing the importance of the greater good promote public health participation.