Climate stress and anxiety, environmental context, and civic engagement: A nationally representative study.

There is increasing recognition that people are experiencing stress and anxiety around climate change, and that this climate stress/anxiety may be associated with more pro-environmental behavior. However, less is known about whether people's own environmental exposures affect climate stress/anxiety or the relationship between climate stress/anxiety and civic engagement. Using three waves of survey data (2020-2022) from the nationally representative Tufts Equity in Health, Wealth, and Civic Engagement Study of US adults (n = 1071), we assessed relationships among environmental exposures (county-level air pollution, greenness, number of toxic release inventory sites, and heatwaves), self-reported climate stress/anxiety, and civic engagement measures (canvasing behavior, collaborating to solve community problems, personal efficacy to solve community problems, group efficacy to solve community problems, voting behavior). Most participants reported experiencing climate stress/anxiety (61%). In general, the environmental exposures we assessed were not significantly associated with climate stress/anxiety or civic engagement metrics, but climate stress/anxiety was positively associated with most of the civic engagement outcomes (canvassing, personal efficacy, group efficacy, voter preference). Our results support the growing literature that climate stress/anxiety may spur constructive civic action, though do not suggest a consistent relationship between adverse environmental exposures and either climate stress/anxiety or civic engagement. Future research and action addressing the climate crisis should promote climate justice by ensuring mental health support for those who experience climate stress anxiety and by promoting pro-environmental civic engagement efforts.

Attitudes on Equal Health Care Access versus Efficient Clinical Decisions across a Not-for-Profit Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Professional roles within a hospital system may influence attitudes behind clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: To determine participants' preferences about clinical decisions that either value equal health care access or efficiency. DESIGN: Deidentified survey asking participants to choose between offering a low-cost screening test to a whole population ("equal access") or a more sensitive, expensive test that could be given to only half of the population but resulting in 10% more avoided deaths ("efficient"). Data collection took place from August 18, 2021, to January 24, 2022. Study 1644 was determined to be exempt by Tufts Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB). SETTING: Tufts Medicine Healthcare System. PARTICIPANTS: Approximately 15,000 hospital employees received an e-mail from the Tufts Medicine Senior Vice President of Academic Integration. MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of survey responses with chi-square and 1-sample t tests to determine the proportion who chose each option. Logistic regression models fit to examine relationships between professional role and test choice. RESULTS: A total of 1,346 participants completed the survey (∼9.0% response rate). Overall, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the "equal access" (48%) and "efficient" option (52%). However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choice. For example, among those in nonclinical roles, women were more likely than men to choose equal health care access. In multivariable analyses, having clinical roles was significantly associated with 1.73 times the likelihood of choosing equal access (95% confidence interval = 1.33-2.25). LIMITATIONS: Generalizability concerns and survey question wording limit the study results. CONCLUSION: Clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option, and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency. These differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality. HIGHLIGHTS: Divergent preferences of valuing equal health care access and efficiency may be in conflict during clinical decision making.In this cross-sectional study that included 1,346 participants, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the "equal access" (48%) and "efficient" option (52%), a nonsignificant difference. However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choiceSince clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency, these differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality.

Household conditions, COVID-19, and equity: Insight from two nationally representative surveys.

Background: With people across the United States spending increased time at home since the emergence of COVID-19, housing characteristics may have an even greater impact on health. Therefore, we assessed associations between household conditions and COVID-19 experiences. Methods: We used data from two nationally representative surveys: the Tufts Equity Study (TES; n = 1449 in 2021; n = 1831 in 2022) and the Household Pulse Survey (HPS; n = 147,380 in 2021; n = 62,826 in 2022). In the TES, housing conditions were characterized by heating/cooling methods; smoking inside the home; visible water damage/mold; age of housing unit; and self-reported concern about various environmental factors. In TES and HPS, household size was assessed. Accounting for sampling weights, we examined associations between each housing exposure and COVID-19 outcomes (diagnosis, vaccination) using separate logistic regression models with covariates selected based on an evidence-based directed acyclic graph. Results: Having had COVID-19 was more likely among people who reported poor physical housing condition (odds ratio [OR] = 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-4.59; 2021), visible water damage or mold/musty smells (OR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.10-2.03; 2022), and larger household size (5+ versus 1-2 people; OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.34-1.75, HPS 2022). COVID-19 vaccination was less likely among participants who reported smoke exposure inside the home (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.31-0.90; 2022), poor water quality (OR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.21-0.85; 2021), noise from industrial activity/construction (OR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.19-0.99; 2022), and larger household size (OR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.46-0.71; HPS 2022). Vaccination was also positively associated with poor indoor air quality (OR = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.02-3.72; 2022) and poor physical housing condition (OR = 2.27; 95% CI = 1.01-5.13; 2022). Certain heating/cooling sources were associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Conclusions: Our study found poor housing conditions associated with increased COVID-19 burden, which may be driven by systemic disparities in housing, healthcare, and financial access to resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Environmental equity and COVID-19 experiences in the United States: Results from three survey waves of a nationally representative study conducted between 2020-2022.

Certain environmental exposures, such as air pollution, are associated with COVID-19 incidence and mortality. To determine whether environmental context is associated with other COVID-19 experiences, we used data from the nationally representative Tufts Equity in Health, Wealth, and Civic Engagement Study data (n=1785; three survey waves 2020-2022). Environmental context was assessed using self-reported climate stress and county-level air pollution, greenness, toxic release inventory site, and heatwave data. Self-reported COVID-19 experiences included willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19, health impacts from COVID-19, receiving assistance for COVID-19, and provisioning assistance for COVID-19. Self-reported climate stress in 2020 or 2021 was associated with increased COVID-19 vaccination willingness by 2022 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.47, 3.76), even after adjusting for political affiliation (OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.09, 2.93). Self-reported climate stress in 2020 was also associated with increased likelihood of receiving COVID-19 assistance by 2021 (OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.29, 2.78). County-level exposures (i.e., less greenness, more toxic release inventory sites, more heatwaves) were associated with increased vaccination willingness. Air pollution exposure in 2020 was positively associated with likelihood of provisioning COVID-19 assistance in 2020 (OR = 1.16 per µg/m3; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.32). Associations between certain environmental exposures and certain COVID-19 outcomes were stronger among those who identify as a race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White and among those who reported experiencing discrimination; however, these trends were not consistent. A latent variable representing a summary construct for environmental context was associated with COVID-19 vaccination willingness. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that intersectional equity issues affecting likelihood of exposure to adverse environmental conditions are also associated with health-related outcomes.

Medical mistrust, discrimination, and COVID-19 vaccine behaviors among a national sample U.S. adults.

Background: COVID-19 vaccine uptake has been suboptimal and disparities in uptake have exacerbated health inequities. It has been postulated that mistrust in the healthcare system and experiences of discrimination or unfair treatment in other settings may be barriers to uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine, although few studies to date have investigated medical mistrust and perceived discrimination together. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between April 23-May 3, 2021, among a national sample of U.S. adults ages 18 years and older. We assessed receipt of and intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19 and associations with the validated Medical Mistrust Index and Everyday Discrimination Scale. Results: 1449 individuals responded, of whom 70.2% either had ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine or reported that they were 'very' or 'somewhat' likely to be vaccinated in the future. In bivariate analyses, vaccination status was significantly associated with age, race/ethnicity, education, income, employment, marital status, health insurance, and political party affiliation. In multivariable analyses comparing those who had ≥1 vaccine dose or were likely to get vaccinated in the future with those who had not had any vaccine doses or did not intend to be vaccinated, each additional point in the Medical Mistrust Index was independently associated with a 16% decrease in the odds of vaccination (adjusted odds ratio = 0.84; 95% confidence interval = 0.81, 0.86). Discriminatory experiences were not associated with vaccination behavior or intention in bivariate or multivariable analyses. Conclusions: Medical mistrust is significantly associated with vaccination status and intentions. Increasing uptake of COVID-19 vaccines will likely require substantive efforts on the part of public health and healthcare officials to build trust with those who are not yet fully vaccinated. We recommend that these efforts focus on building the 'trustworthiness' of these entities, an approach that will require a paradigm shift away from a focus on correcting individual beliefs and knowledge, to acknowledging and addressing the root causes underlying mistrust.

Web-Based Health Information-Seeking Methods and Time Since Provider Engagement: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of web-based methods to seek health information is increasing in popularity. As web-based health information (WHI)-seeking affects health-related decision support and chronic symptom self-management, WHI-seeking from online sources may impact health care decisions and outcomes, including care-seeking decisions. Patients who are routinely connected to physicians are more likely to receive better and more consistent care. Little is known about whether WHI-seeking impacts the frequency at which patients engage with health care providers. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to describe the associations between the use of web-based methods to seek information about one's own health and the time since last engaging with a health care provider about one's own health. Additionally, we aimed to assess participants' trust in health care organizations to contextualize our findings. METHODS: We analyzed data from US adults participating in the nationally representative Tufts Equity in Health, Wealth, and Civic Engagement Survey (N=1034). Bivariate associations between demographic characteristics and health information-seeking methods were assessed with Pearson chi-squared tests. Bivariate associations of Medical Mistrust Index (MMI) scores with each health information-seeking method and time since provider engagement were assessed with F tests and adjusted Wald tests. We fit a multivariable logistic regression model to assess the association between WHI-seeking within the 12 months prior to survey (alone or in combination with provider-based methods versus provider only) and engagement with a provider more than 1 year prior to the time of survey, adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, sex, education, insurance coverage, and MMI. RESULTS: Age, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, health insurance source, MMI, and time since provider engagement were each significantly associated with the health information-seeking method in bivariate analyses. Compared to using only provider-based health information seeking methods, WHI-based methods alone or in combination with provider-based methods were associated with a 51% lower likelihood (odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.87) of engaging with a provider within the previous year. Participants who used WHI-seeking methods alone and those who had not engaged with a health care provider within the previous year demonstrated a higher mean MMI score; however, MMI was not a significant predictor of time since engagement with a provider in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings from a nationally representative survey suggest that for those who use WHI-seeking methods (alone or in combination with provider-based information-seeking methods), there is a statistically significant lower likelihood of engaging with a provider in a year compared to those who only use provider-based methods. Future research should consider the intent of a person's visit with a provider, trust in health care systems, methods of provider engagement, and specific web-based platforms for health information.

Assessing equity in health, wealth, and civic engagement: a nationally representative survey, United States, 2020.

BACKGROUND: The principle of equity is fundamental to many current debates about social issues and plays an important role in community and individual health. Traditional research has focused on singular dimensions of equity (e.g., wealth), and often lacks a comprehensive perspective. The goal of this study was to assess relationships among three domains of equity, health, wealth, and civic engagement, in a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework to guide our inquiry of equity across health, wealth, and civic engagement constructs to generate a broad but nuanced understanding of equity. Through Ipsos' KnowledgePanel service, we conducted a cross-sectional, online survey between May 29-June 20, 2020 designed to be representative of the adult U.S. POPULATION: Based on our conceptual framework, we assessed the population-weighted prevalence of health outcomes and behaviors, as well as measures of wealth and civic engagement. We linked individual-level data with population-level environmental and social context variables. Using structural equation modeling, we developed latent constructs for wealth and civic engagement, to assess associations with a measured health variable. RESULTS: We found that the distribution of sociodemographic, health, and wealth measures in our sample (n = 1267) were comparable to those from other national surveys. Our quantitative illustration of the relationships among the domains of health, wealth, and civic engagement provided support for the interrelationships of constructs within our conceptual model. Latent constructs for wealth and civic engagement were significantly correlated (p = 0.013), and both constructs were used to predict self-reported health. Beta coefficients for all indicators of health, wealth, and civic engagement had the expected direction (positive or negative associations). CONCLUSION: Through development and assessment of our comprehensive equity framework, we found significant associations among key equity domains. Our conceptual framework and results can serve as a guide for future equity research, encouraging a more thorough assessment of equity.

Prior COVID-19 Infection, Mental Health, Food and Financial Insecurity, and Association With COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage and Intent Among College-Aged Young Adults, US, 2021.

INTRODUCTION: More than 700,000 COVID-19 cases have been linked to American colleges and universities since the beginning of the pandemic. However, studies are limited on the effects of the pandemic on college-aged young adults and its association with their COVID-19 vaccination status and intent. METHODS: Using the Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a large, nationally representative survey fielded from April 14 through May 24, 2021, we assessed the effects of the pandemic (COVID-19 infection, mental health, food and financial security) on COVID-19 vaccination coverage (≥1 dose) and intentions toward vaccination among college-aged young adults in the United States (N = 6,758). We examined factors associated with vaccination coverage and intent, and reasons for not getting vaccinated. RESULTS: Approximately one-fifth (19.6%) of college-aged young adults had a previous diagnosis of COVID-19, 43.5% and 39.1% reported having anxiety or depression, respectively, 10.9% reported that they sometimes or often did not have enough food to eat, and 22.6% and 12.3% found it somewhat or very difficult, respectively, to pay for household expenses. Of college-aged young adults, 63.1% had received at least 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, 15.4% probably would be vaccinated or were unsure about getting the vaccine, and 14.0% probably will not or definitely will not get vaccinated. Adults who were non-Hispanic Black (vs non-Hispanic White) or had food or financial insecurities (vs did not) were less likely to be vaccinated or intend to be vaccinated. Among adults who probably will not or definitely will not be vaccinated, more than one-third said that they did not believe a vaccine was needed. CONCLUSION: Ensuring high and equitable vaccination coverage among college-aged young adults is critical for safely reopening in-person learning and resuming prepandemic activities.

Changes in COVID-19 vaccination receipt and intention to vaccinate by socioeconomic characteristics and geographic area, United States, January 6 - March 29, 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies suggested that almost one-third of U.S. adults did not plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine once it is available to them. The purpose of this study was to examine changes in vaccine intentions and attitudes by sociodemographic characteristics and geographic areas, factors associated with vaccination intent, and reasons for non-vaccination among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. METHODS: Data from six waves of the Household Pulse Survey (6 January - 29 March 2021) were analyzed. Differences between January and March were assessed using t-tests. Factors associated with vaccination intent were examined in multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: From early January to late March, vaccination receipt of ≥1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or intention to definitely get vaccinated increased from 54.7 to 72.3%; however, disparities in vaccination intent continued to exist by age group, race/ethnic groups, and socioeconomic characteristics. Vaccine receipt and the intent were the lowest for region 4 (southeastern U.S.) throughout this period. Adults who had a previous COVID-19 diagnosis or were unsure if they have had COVID-19 were less likely to intend to get vaccinated [prevalence ratio = 0.92 (95%CI: 0.90-0.93) and 0.80 (95%CI: 0.74-0.85), respectively]. The belief that a vaccine is not needed increased by more than five percentage points from early January to late March. CONCLUSION: Intent to definitely get a COVID-19 vaccine increased by almost 18 percentage points from early January to late March; however, younger adults, adults who are non-Hispanic Black or other races, adults of lower socioeconomic status, and adults living in the southeastern U.S. region (Region 4) continue to have higher coverage gaps and levels of vaccine hesitancy. Emphasizing the importance of vaccination among all populations, and removing barriers to vaccines, may lead to a reduction of COVID-19 incidence and bring an end to the pandemic.KEY MESSAGESReceipt of ≥1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and intent to probably or definitely get vaccinated increased from early January to late March; however, disparities in vaccine intent continued to exist by age group, race/ethnic groups, and socioeconomic characteristics.Vaccine receipt and the intent were the lowest for region 4 (southeastern U.S.) compared to other regions during this period.Adults who had a previous COVID-19 diagnosis or were unsure if they have had COVID-19 were less likely to intend to get vaccinated; overall, the belief that a vaccine is not needed to be increased by more than 5% points from early January to late March.[Formula: see text].

Why are some people reluctant to be vaccinated for COVID-19? A cross-sectional survey among U.S. Adults in May-June 2020.

Understanding reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is necessary to ensure maximum uptake, needed for herd immunity. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between May 29-June 20, 2020 among a national sample of U.S. adults ages 18 years and over to assess cognitive, attitudinal and normative beliefs associated with not intending to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Of 1219 respondents, 17.7% said that they would not get a vaccine and 24.2% were unsure. In multivariable analyses controlled for gender, age, income, education, religious affiliation, health insurance coverage, and political party affiliation, those who reported that they were unwilling be vaccinated (versus those who were willing) were less likely to agree that vaccines are safe/effective (Relative Risk Ratio (RRR): 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31, 0.66), that everyone has a responsibility to be vaccinated (RRR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.52), that public authorities should be able to mandate vaccination (RRR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.98), and more likely to believe that if everyone else were vaccinated they would not need a vaccine (RRR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.78). Our results suggest that health messages should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines, as well as the fact that vaccinating oneself is important, even if the level of uptake in the community is high.

Health Effects and Environmental Justice Concerns of Exposure to Uranium in Drinking Water.

We discuss the recent epidemiologic literature regarding health effects of uranium exposure in drinking water focusing on the chemical characteristics of uranium. While there is strong toxicologic evidence for renal and reproductive effects as well as DNA damage, the epidemiologic evidence for these effects in people exposed to uranium in drinking water is limited. Further, epidemiologic evidence is lacking for cardiovascular and oncogenic effects. One challenge in characterizing health effects of uranium in drinking water is the paucity of long-term cohort studies with individual level exposure assessment. Nevertheless, there are environmental justice concerns due to the substantial exposures for certain populations. For example, we present original data suggesting that individuals living in the Navajo Nation are exposed to high levels of uranium in unregulated well water used for drinking. In 10 out of 185 samples (5.4 %), concentrations of uranium exceeded standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Therefore, efforts to mitigate exposure to toxic elements in drinking water are warranted and should be prioritized.

Evidence for the healthy immigrant effect in older Chinese immigrants: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Previous work has found that first-generation immigrants to developed nations tend to have better health than individuals born in the host country. We examined the evidence for the healthy immigrant effect and convergence of health status between Chinese immigrants (n = 147) and U.S. born whites (n = 167) participating in the cross-sectional Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and Health study and residing in the same neighborhoods. METHODS: We used bivariate and multivariate models to compare disease prevalence and clinical biomarkers. RESULTS: Despite an older average age and lower socioeconomic status, Chinese immigrants were less likely to have asthma (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.09-0.48) or cardiovascular disease (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.20-0.94), had lower body mass index (BMI), lower inflammation biomarker levels, lower average sex-adjusted low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and higher average sex-adjusted high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. However, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of diabetes or hypertension. Duration of time in the U.S. was related to cardiovascular disease and asthma but was not associated with diabetes, hypertension, BMI, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, socioeconomic status, or health behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: The lower CVD and asthma prevalence among the Chinese immigrants may be partially attributed to healthier diets, more physical activity, lower BMI, and less exposure to cigarette smoke. First generation immigrant status may be protective even after about two decades.