Benefit-Cost Analysis of the HHS COVID-19 Campaign: April 2021-March 2022.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimated the benefits and costs of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign (the Campaign) and associated vaccination-related impacts. METHODS: Weekly media market and national Campaign expenditures were used to estimate weekly first-dose vaccinations that would not have occurred absent the Campaign, weekly Campaign-attributed complete vaccinations, and corresponding COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths averted. Benefits were valued using estimated morbidity and mortality reductions and associated values of a statistical life and a statistical case. Costs were estimated using Campaign paid media expenditures and corresponding vaccination costs. The net Campaign and vaccination benefit and return on investment were calculated. Analyses were conducted from 2022 to 2024. RESULTS: Between April 2021 and March 2022, an estimated 55.9 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines would not have been administered absent the Campaign. Campaign-attributed vaccinations resulted in 2,576,133 fewer mild COVID-19 cases, 243,979 fewer nonfatal COVID-19 hospitalizations, and 51,675 lives saved from COVID-19. The total Campaign benefit was $740.2 billion, and Campaign and vaccination costs totaled $8.3 billion, with net benefits of approximately $732.0 billion. For every $1 spent, the Campaign and corresponding vaccination costs resulted in benefits of approximately $89.54. CONCLUSIONS: The We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign saved more than 50,000 lives and prevented hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and millions of COVID-19 cases, representing hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits in less than one year. Findings suggest that public education campaigns are a cost-effective approach to reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Association between vaccination beliefs and COVID-19 vaccine uptake in a longitudinal panel survey of adults in the United States, 2021-2022.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been a major limiting factor to the widespread uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. A range of interventions, including mass media campaigns, have been implemented to encourage COVID-19 vaccine confidence and uptake. Such interventions are often guided by theories of behavior change, which posit that behavioral factors, including beliefs, influence behaviors such as vaccination. Although previous studies have examined relationships between vaccination beliefs and COVID-19 vaccination behavior, they come with limitations, such as the use of cross-sectional study designs and, for longitudinal studies, few survey waves. To account for these limitations, we examined associations between vaccination beliefs and COVID-19 vaccine uptake using data from six waves of a nationally representative, longitudinal survey of U.S. adults (N = 3,524) administered over a nearly 2-year period (January 2021-November 2022). Survey-weighted lagged logistic regression models were used to examine the association between lagged reports of vaccination belief change and COVID-19 vaccine uptake, using five belief scales: (1) importance of COVID-19 vaccines, (2) perceived benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, (3) COVID-19 vaccine concerns and risks, (4) normative beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination, and (5) perceptions of general vaccine safety and effectiveness. Analyses controlled for confounding factors and accounted for within-respondent dependence due to repeated measures. In individual models, all vaccination belief scales were significantly associated with increased COVID-19 vaccine uptake. In a combined model, all belief scales except the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination were significant predictors of vaccine uptake. Overall, belief scales indicating the importance of COVID-19 vaccines and normative beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination were the strongest predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Findings demonstrate that changes in vaccination beliefs influence subsequent COVID-19 vaccine uptake, with implications for the development of future interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination.

Association Between the "We Can Do This" Campaign and COVID-19 Booster Uptake, U.S., 2021-2022.

Introduction: Monovalent COVID-19 boosters lower the risk of COVID-19 disease, infection, hospitalization, and death. This study examined associations between exposure to a booster public education campaign (the booster campaign) and the increases in booster uptake and reduced length of time until booster uptake among U.S. adults. Methods: Data included a national survey panel of U.S. adults and booster campaign paid media (i.e., digital impressions and TV gross rating points) from September 2021 to May 2022. Multilevel logistic regression models examined the association between exposure to the booster campaign and the likelihood of booster uptake. A Cox proportional hazard model evaluated the association between the booster campaign and booster uptake timing. Interaction terms between the booster campaign media variables and first-dose COVID-19 vaccine date examined differential effects of the booster campaign based on when individuals received their first dose. Results: Interactions between first-dose vaccination date and the booster campaign were statistically significant for cumulative digital impressions (ß=4.75e-08; 95% CIs=5.93e-09, 8.90e-08) and TV gross rating points (ß = 4.62e-05; 95% CIs=5.09e-06, 8.73e-05), suggesting that booster uptake was strongest among those who received their first-dose COVID-19 vaccine later. Booster campaign cumulative digital impressions and TV gross rating points were associated with accelerated booster uptake among those with later first-dose vaccination dates (digital: ß=9.98e-08; 95% CIs=2.70e-08, 1.73e-07; TV: ß=0.0001; 95% CIs=2.80e-05, 0.0002), relative to those with earlier first-dose vaccination dates. Conclusions: The booster campaign may have increased monovalent booster uptake and reduced how long individuals waited until getting their booster. Public education campaigns show promise in stemming the tide of pandemic fatigue and increasing booster confidence.

Association Between the United States Department of Health and Human Services' COVID-19 Public Education Campaign and Initial Adult COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake by Race and Ethnicity in the United States, 2020-2022.

Non-Hispanic Black (Black) and Hispanic/Latino (Latino) populations face an increased risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 relative to non-Hispanic White (White) populations. When COVID-19 vaccines became available in December 2020, Black and Latino adults were less likely than White adults to get vaccinated due to factors such as racial discrimination and structural barriers to uptake. In April 2021, the U.S. HHS COVID-19 public education campaign (the Campaign) was launched to promote vaccination through general and audience-tailored messaging. As of March 2022, Black and Latino adults had reached parity with White adults in COVID-19 vaccine uptake. This study evaluated the relationship between Campaign exposure and subsequent vaccine uptake among Black, Latino, and White adults in the United States and assessed whether participant race/ethnicity moderated the relationship between Campaign exposure and vaccine uptake. Campaign media delivery data was merged with survey data collected from a sample of U.S. adults (n = 2,923) over four waves from January 2021 to March 2022. Logistic regression analysis showed that cumulative Campaign digital impressions had a positive, statistically significant association with COVID-19 vaccine uptake, and that participant race/ethnicity moderated this association. Compared with White adults, the magnitude of the relationship between cumulative impressions and vaccination was greater among Black and Latino adults. Results from a simulation model suggested that the Campaign may have been responsible for closing 5.0% of the gap in COVID-19 vaccination by race/ethnicity from April to mid-September 2021. We discuss implications for future public education campaigns that aim to reduce health disparities.

Evaluation of the "We Can Do This" Campaign Paid Media and COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake, United States, December 2020-January 2022.

Public education campaigns are promising methods for promoting vaccine uptake. In April 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched the We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign. This study is one of the first evaluations of this COVID-19 public education campaign. We tested associations between channel-specific campaign exposure (i.e. digital, TV, radio, print, and out-of-home advertising) and COVID-19 first-dose vaccinations among a nationally representative online sample of 3,278 adults. The study introduces novel ways to simultaneously evaluate short- and long-term cumulative media dose, filling an important gap in campaign evaluation literature. We observed a positive, statistically significant relationship between the short-term change in digital media dose and the likelihood of first-dose vaccination, and a positive, statistically significant relationship between long-term cumulative TV dose and the likelihood of first-dose vaccination. Results suggest that both digital and TV ads contributed to vaccination, such that digital media was associated with more immediate behavioral changes, whereas TV gradually shifted behaviors over time. As findings varied by media channel, this study suggests that public education campaigns should consider delivering campaign messages across multiple media channels to enhance campaign reach across audiences.

Recalled Exposure to COVID-19 Public Education Campaign Advertisements Predicts COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence.

This study examined the relationship between recalled exposure to the We Can Do This COVID-19 Public Education Campaign (the Campaign) and COVID-19 vaccine confidence (the likelihood of vaccination or vaccine uptake) in the general population, including vaccine-hesitant adults (the "Movable Middle"). Analyses used three waves of a triannual, nationally representative panel survey of adults in the U.S. fielded from January to November 2021 (n = 3,446). Proportional odds regression results demonstrated a positive, statistically significant relationship between past 4-month Campaign recall and vaccine confidence, controlling for lagged reports of Campaign recall and vaccine confidence; concurrent and lagged fictional campaign recall; survey wave; and sociodemographics. Results indicated that as one moves from no Campaign recall to infrequent recall, there is a 29% increase in the odds of being in a higher vaccine confidence category. Findings offer evidence of the impact of a COVID-19 public education campaign on increasing vaccine confidence.

The Initial Relationship Between the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Digital COVID-19 Public Education Campaign and Vaccine Uptake: Campaign Effectiveness Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Over 1 million people in the United States have died of COVID-19. In response to this public health crisis, the US Department of Health and Human Services launched the We Can Do This public education campaign in April 2021 to increase vaccine confidence. The campaign uses a mix of digital, television, print, radio, and out-of-home channels to reach target audiences. However, the impact of this campaign on vaccine uptake has not yet been assessed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to address this gap by assessing the association between the We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign's digital impressions and the likelihood of first-dose COVID-19 vaccination among US adults. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 3642 adults recruited from a US probability panel was surveyed over 3 waves (wave 1: January to February 2021; wave 2: May to June 2021; and wave 3: September to November 2021) regarding COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine confidence, and sociodemographics. Survey data were merged with weekly paid digital campaign impressions delivered to each respondent's media market (designated market area [DMA]) during that period. The unit of analysis was the survey respondent-broadcast week, with respondents nested by DMA. Data were analyzed using a multilevel logit model with varying intercepts by DMA and time-fixed effects. RESULTS: The We Can Do This digital campaign was successful in encouraging first-dose COVID-19 vaccination. The findings were robust to multiple modeling specifications, with the independent effect of the change in the campaign's digital dose remaining practically unchanged across all models. Increases in DMA-level paid digital campaign impressions in a given week from -30,000 to 30,000 increased the likelihood of first-dose COVID-19 vaccination by 125%. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study provide initial evidence of the We Can Do This campaign's digital impact on vaccine uptake. The size and length of the Department of Health and Human Services We Can Do This public education campaign make it uniquely situated to examine the impact of a digital campaign on COVID-19 vaccination, which may help inform future vaccine communication efforts and broader public education efforts. These findings suggest that campaign digital dose is positively associated with COVID-19 vaccination uptake among US adults; future research assessing campaign impact on reduced COVID-19-attributed morbidity and mortality and other benefits is recommended. This study indicates that digital channels have played an important role in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Digital outreach may be integral in addressing future pandemics and could even play a role in addressing nonpandemic public health crises.

Psychological Constructs Related to Seat Belt Use: A Nationally Representative Survey Study.

Seat belt use can significantly reduce fatalities in motor vehicle crashes (Kahane, 2000). Nevertheless, the current U.S. seat belt use rate of 89.6% (Enriquez & Pickrell, 2019) indicates that a relatively small but pervasive portion of the population does not wear seat belts on a full-time basis. Whereas much is known about the demographic predictors of seat belt use, far less is understood about psychological factors that predict individual proclivities toward using or not using a seat belt. In this study, we examined some of these potential psychological predictors. A probability-based web survey was conducted with 6,038 U.S. residents aged 16 or older who reported having driven or ridden in a car in the past year. We measured self-reported seat belt use and 18 psychological constructs and found that delay of gratification, life satisfaction, risk aversion, risk perception, and resistance to peer influence were positively associated with belt use. Impulsivity and social resistance orientation were negatively associated with belt use. Prior research has shown that psychological factors like delay of gratification, risk aversion/perception, and impulsivity predict other health behaviors (e.g., cigarette smoking, sunscreen use); our results extend this literature to seat belts and can aid the development of traffic safety programs targeted at non-users who-due to such factors-may be resistant to more traditional countermeasures such as legislation and enforcement.

Demands, control, and support: a meta-analytic review of work characteristics interrelationships.

The job demands-control-support model (DCS; Karasek, 1979) is an influential theory for understanding how work characteristics relate to employee well-being, health, and performance. However, previous research has largely neglected theory-building regarding the interrelationships between job demands, control, and support. We remedy such theoretical underdevelopment by reviewing and integrating theory on the relationships between demands, control, and support to develop five hypotheses. We test our hypotheses within a meta-analytic framework using a set of 106 studies. Our results show negative demands-supervisor support and demands-coworker support relationships, but no significant demand-control relationship. Our findings also indicate positive control-supervisor support and control-coworker support relationships. Using the meta-analytic effect sizes, we also estimate two competing structural equation models intended to discern which theoretical model using DCS work characteristics to predict occupational strain and well-being is more consistent with our data. Our results suggest that job control and both sources of social support should be treated independently, as opposed to indicators of a shared latent factor, in terms of their prediction of well-being and job demands. Our study offers support for the usefulness of the DCS and more modern conceptualizations of the working environment in understanding the employee work experience and for predicting important work outcomes. (

On the role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance: a meta-analytic investigation.

Although interest regarding the role of dispositional affect in job behaviors has surged in recent years, the true magnitude of affectivity's influence remains unknown. To address this issue, the authors conducted a qualitative and quantitative review of the relationships between positive and negative affectivity (PA and NA, respectively) and various performance dimensions. A series of meta-analyses based on 57 primary studies indicated that PA and NA predicted task performance in the hypothesized directions and that the relationships were strongest for subjectively rated versus objectively rated performance. In addition, PA was related to organizational citizenship behaviors but not withdrawal behaviors, and NA was related to organizational citizenship behaviors, withdrawal behaviors, counterproductive work behaviors, and occupational injury. Mediational analyses revealed that affect operated through different mechanisms in influencing the various performance dimensions. Regression analyses documented that PA and NA uniquely predicted task performance but that extraversion and neuroticism did not, when the four were considered simultaneously. Discussion focuses on the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).