ABSTRACT
Introduction: Until vaccines became available in late 2020, our ability to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within countries depended largely on voluntary adherence to mitigation measures. However, individual decision-making regarding acceptable COVID-19 risk is complex. To better understand decision-making regarding COVID-19 risk, we conducted a qualitative substudy within a larger Berkeley COVID-19 Safe Campus Initiative (BCSCI) during the summer of 2020, and completed a mixed-methods analysis of factors influencing decision-making. Materials and methods: We interviewed 20 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 10 who remained negative, and analyzed quantitative survey data from 3,324 BCSCI participants. The BCSCI study enrolled university-affiliated people living in the local area during summer of 2020, collected data on behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19, and conducted SARS-CoV-2 testing at baseline and endline. Results: At baseline, 1362 students (57.5%) and 285 non-students (35.1%) said it had been somewhat or very difficult to comply with COVID-19-related mandates. Most-cited reasons were the need to go out for food/essentials, difficulty of being away from family/friends, and loneliness. Eight interviewees explicitly noted they made decisions partially because of others who may be at high risk. We did not find significant differences between the behaviors of students and non-students. Discussion: Despite prevailing attitudes about irresponsibility of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic, students in our study demonstrated a commitment to making rational choices about risk behavior, not unlike non-students around them. Decision-making was driven by perceived susceptibility to severe disease, need for social interaction, and concern about risk to others. A harm reduction public health approach may be beneficial.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Stigma has inhibited public health practitioners' influence during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explore the experienced and anticipated stigma of people affiliated with a large university in the United States, using the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative secondary substudy of 20 people who tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and 10 who tested negative in the summer of 2020, selected from a study of 3,324 university students and employees. FINDINGS: No participants reported anticipated stigmatization prior to testing positive. However, eight of 20 participants recounted stigma marking (being marked by COVID-19 diagnosis or membership in a "high-risk" group) or manifestations of stigma after testing positive, including feelings of guilt or shame, and concerns about being judged as selfish or irresponsible. Three described being denied services or social interactions as a result of having had COVID-19, long after their infectiousness ended. Participants noted that clear public health messaging must be paired with detailed scientific information, rather than leaving people to resort to non-experts to understand the science. DISCUSSION: Public health messaging designed to mitigate spread of SARS-CoV-2 and protect the community may perpetuate stigma and exacerbate inequities. As a result, people may avoid testing or treatment, mistrust public health messaging, or even use risk-increasing behavior as coping mechanisms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Intentional use of language that promotes equity and deters discrimination must be high priority for any COVID-19-related public health messaging. Partnership with community leaders to co-create programs and disseminate messaging is a critical strategy for reducing stigma, especially for historically mistreated groups.