Depression and assets during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study of mental health across income and savings groups.

The prevalence of depression in U.S. adults during the COVID-19 pandemic has been high overall and particularly high among persons with fewer assets. Building on previous work on assets and mental health, we document the burden of depression in groups based on income and savings during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a nationally representative, longitudinal panel study of U.S. adults (N = 1,271) collected in April-May 2020 (T1), April-May 2021 (T2), and April-May 2022 (T3), we estimated the adjusted odds of reporting probable depression at any time during the COVID-19 pandemic with generalized estimating equations (GEE). We explored probable depression-defined as a score of ≥10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)-by four asset groups, defined by median income (≥$65,000) and savings (≥$20,000) categories. The prevalence of probable depression was consistently high in Spring 2020, Spring 2021, and Spring 2022 with 27.9% of U.S. adults reporting probable depression in Spring 2022. We found that there were four distinct asset groups that experienced different depression trajectories over the COVID-19 pandemic. Low income-low savings asset groups had the highest level of probable depression across time, reporting 3.7 times the odds (95% CI: 2.6, 5.3) of probable depression at any time relative to high income-high savings asset groups. While probable depression stayed relatively stable across time for most groups, the low income-low savings group reported significantly higher levels of probable depression at T2, compared to T1, and the high income-low savings group reported significantly higher levels of probable depression at T3 than T1. The weighted average of probable depression across time was 42.9% for low income-low savings groups, 24.3% for high income-low savings groups, 19.4% for low income-high savings groups, and 14.0% for high income-high savings groups. Efforts to ameliorate both savings and income may be necessary to mitigate the mental health consequences of pandemics.

Mental Health and U.S. Attitudes Toward Social Determinants of Health Policies.

INTRODUCTION: Research has suggested that individual health may influence policy attitudes, yet the relationship between mental health and policy support is understudied. Clarifying this relationship may help inform policies that can improve the population mental health. To address this gap, this study measures national support for 5 social determinants of health policy priorities and their relation to mental health and political affiliation. METHODS: This study assessed support for 5 policy priorities related to the social determinants of health using a nationally representative survey of US adults (n=2,430) conducted in March-April 2023. Logistic regression was used to estimate the predicted probability of identifying each priority as important, test differences in support by self-rated mental health, and evaluate whether partisanship modified these relationships. Analyses were conducted in 2023. RESULTS: The majority of US adults, across partisan identities, supported 5 policy priorities related to improving the economy (84%), healthcare affordability (77%), improving K-12 education (76%), housing affordability (68%), and childcare affordability (61%). Worse mental health predicted significantly greater support for addressing housing affordability (73.9% vs 66.2%), and partisanship modified the relationship between mental health and support for improving the economy, improving K-12 education, and housing affordability. CONCLUSIONS: In 2023, there was substantial bipartisan support for federal policy action to address the social determinants of health, and worse mental health was related to greater policy support, particularly among Democrats. Federal policymakers have a broad consensus to take action to address the social determinants of health, which may improve the population mental health.

Inclusive and intersectoral: community health improvement planning opportunities to advance the social determinants of health and health equity.

BACKGROUND: Community health improvement plans (CHIPs) are strategic planning tools that help local communities identify and address their public health needs. Many local health departments have developed a CHIP, yet there is a lack of research on the extent to which these plans address root causes of health disparities such as the social determinants of health. This study aims to inventory the social determinants of health included in 13 CHIPs and examine facilitators and challenges faced by local health departments and partners when trying to include the social determinants of health. METHODS: We conducted a comparative plan evaluation by scoring 13 CHIPs on their inclusion of equity orientation, inclusive planning processes, and five social determinants of health: health care access and quality, the neighborhood and built environment, economic stability, social and community context, and education access and quality. To supplement the plan evaluation, we conducted 32 in-depth interviews with CHIP leaders and stakeholders to understand the factors contributing to the inclusion and exclusion of the social determinants of health in the planning process. RESULTS: CHIPs received an average score of 49/100 for the inclusion of the social determinants of health. Most plans addressed health care access and quality and the neighborhood and built environment, but they often did not address economic stability, the social and community context, and education access and quality. Regarding their overall equity orientation, CHIPs received an average score of 35/100, reflecting a relative lack of attention to equity and inclusive planning processes in the plans. Interviews revealed that challenges engaging partners, making clear connections between CHIPs and social determinants, and a lack of capacity or public and partner support often led to the exclusion of the social determinants of health. Recommendations to improve planning processes include improving data infrastructure, providing resources for dedicated planning staff and community engagement incentives, and centering equity throughout the planning process. CONCLUSIONS: Although local health departments can leverage CHIPs to improve population health and address health disparities, they face a range of challenges to including the social determinants of health in CHIPs. Additional resourcing and improved data are needed to facilitate broader inclusion of these determinants, and more work is needed to elevate equity throughout these planning processes.

Predictors of Public Support for Social Safety Net Policy During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: U.S. residents had varying experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and social safety net policy in 2020. Past research has suggested that partisanship, ideology, racial attitudes, and personal experience may each influence policy attitudes. In this study, we explore whether variation in support for social safety net policy in 2020 is predicted by negative experiences of the pandemic when controlling for racial attitudes, partisanship, and ideology. METHODS: Support for 12 social safety net policies in 2020 was estimated using data from a nationally representative panel survey of U.S. adults conducted in 2020 (n=1,222). Logistic regression was used to examine differences in the predicted probability of supporting a majority of social safety net policies related to health, housing, and employment by partisanship, ideology, racial attitudes, and negative experiences of the pandemic. Analyses were conducted in 2021. RESULTS: Higher levels of symbolic racism was a consistently strong predictor of lower social safety net policy support across health, housing, and employment policies; as was identifying as either Conservative or Republican. Negative experiences of the pandemic were generally unpredictive of support for the social safety net policy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the pandemic's consequences as well as the potential for social safety net policy to address these consequences, negative experiences of the pandemic failed to predict policy support, even as racial attitudes, partisanship, and ideology strongly predicted these preferences in 2020. Building public support for social safety net policy requires communication strategies that identify the shared benefits of these policies.

Public support for U.S. social safety net policies throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 has stretched the U.S. social safety net and prompted federal legislation designed to ameliorate the pandemic's health and economic impacts. We surveyed a nationally representative cohort of 1222 U.S. adults in April 2020 and November 2020 to evaluate changes in public opinion about 11 social safety net policies and the role of government over the course of the pandemic. A majority of U.S. adults supported six policies at both time points, including policies guaranteeing two weeks of paid sick leave; enacting universal health insurance; increasing the federal minimum wage; and increasing government spending on construction projects, business tax credits, and employment education and training. From April to November 2020, public support was stable for nine of the 11 policies but declined nearly 10 percentage points for policies guaranteeing two weeks paid sick leave (from 76% support in April 2020 to 67% support in November 2020) and extending unemployment insurance benefits (51% to 42%). Declines in support for these two policies were concentrated among those with higher incomes, more education, in better health status, the employed, and those with health insurance. The share of respondents believing in a strong role of government also declined from 33% in April to 26% in November 2020 (p > 0.05). Despite these shifts, we observed consistent majority support for several policies enacted during the pandemic, including guaranteeing paid sick leave and business tax credits, as well as employment-related policies.