If you build it, will they come? Social, economic, and psychological determinants of COVID-19 testing decisions.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of testing and tracing programs to reduce COVID-19 transmission hinges not only on widespread access to testing, but also on the public's willingness to participate in them. To the extent that testing intentions are patterned by social determinants of health, this constitutes an understudied mechanism of disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: Using data from a representative household probability sample, the Person to Person Health Interview Study (n = 935), sociodemographic, economic, and psychological determinants of testing considerations were evaluated across six domains: treatment affordability, ability to work if positive, hospital effectiveness, symptom severity, proximity to infected, and risk of transmitting to others. RESULTS: Findings demonstrated significant differences in testing motivations across race/ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic status, and worry about self and loved ones. Notably, Black (p<0.01) and Latino (p<0.05) respondents and those experiencing financial strain (p<0.001) were disproportionately likely to indicate that resource factors would influence their decision to get tested. Desire to reduce transmission and concern about proximity to the infected were reported among those who expressed COVID-19 worries (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Public health efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic must address social, economic, and psychological factors that enable and constrain individual behavior. Increasing access to preventative interventions and technologies, including vaccines, is unlikely to markedly reduce morbidity and mortality without effective messaging and economic support to improve uptake in vulnerable populations.

Pandemic precarity: COVID-19 is exposing and exacerbating inequalities in the American heartland.

Crises lay bare the social fault lines of society. In the United States, race, gender, age, and education have affected vulnerability to COVID-19 infection. Yet, consequences likely extend far beyond morbidity and mortality. Temporarily closing the economy sent shock waves through communities, raising the possibility that social inequities, preexisting and current, have weakened economic resiliency and reinforced disadvantage, especially among groups most devastated by the Great Recession. We address pandemic precarity, or risk for material and financial insecurity, in Indiana, where manufacturing loss is high, metro areas ranked among the hardest hit by the Great Recession nationally, and health indicators stand in the bottom quintile. Using longitudinal data (n = 994) from the Person to Person Health Interview Study, fielded in 2019-2020 and again during Indiana's initial stay-at-home order, we provide a representative, probability-based assessment of adverse economic outcomes of the pandemic. Survey-weighted multivariate regressions, controlling for preexisting inequality, find Black adults over 3 times as likely as Whites to report food insecurity, being laid off, or being unemployed. Residents without a college degree are twice as likely to report food insecurity (compared to some college), while those not completing high school (compared to bachelor's degree) are 4 times as likely to do so. Younger adults and women were also more likely to report economic hardships. Together, the results support contentions of a Matthew Effect, where pandemic precarity disproportionately affects historically disadvantaged groups, widening inequality. Strategically deployed relief efforts and longer-term policy reforms are needed to challenge the perennial and unequal impact of disasters.