Perceptions of the ethical permissibility of strict travel restrictions to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Although there has been extensive exploration of public opinion surrounding many non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) aimed at mitigating transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (e.g. mask-wearing and social distancing), there has been less discussion of the public's perception of the ethical appropriateness other NPIs. This paper presents the results of a survey of U.S. adults' opinions of the ethical permissibility of both state-to-state and international travel restrictions to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Our research revealed overall high agreement with the ethical permissibility of both state-to-state and international travel restrictions, though we saw significant difference across political party affiliation and conservative/liberal ideologies. Other factors associated with agreement with state-to-state travel restrictions included increasing education, increasing income, and both high and low commitment altruism. When considering international travel restrictions, income, education, and low commitment altruism were associated with increased agreement with the ethical permissibility of international travel restrictions. Ethical analysis and implications are explored.

Influenza vaccination in the time of COVID-19: A national U.S. survey of adults.

INTRODUCTION: Decisions about influenza vaccination for fall-winter 2020 were made against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. During May 2020, the authors examined intended vaccination in the next 12 months in relationship to demographic variables, healthcare attitudes, and personal COVID-19 experiences for two samples of adults--those who did not receive influenza vaccine during the prior 12 months, and those who did. METHODS: In May 2020, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a national US sample. Participants reported prior influenza vaccination (yes/no during prior 12 months) and anticipated vaccination (yes/no during next 12 months). Covariates included demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race-ethnicity, political ideology), general beliefs (e.g., benefits of vaccines, altruistic attitudes), and COVID-19 health beliefs and experiences (COVID-19 worry and severity, perception of COVID-19 as a community threat, knowing someone with COVID-19). For each group, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was conducted with intent to vaccinate as the outcome. RESULTS: Among participants (n = 3502), 47% did not receive influenza vaccine in the prior 12 months and 53% had; 25.5% of non-vaccinators and 91.9% of vaccinators intended future vaccination. For non-vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with race/ethnicity (Hispanics were more likely to intend than white-NH; AOR = 1.74; 95% CI = 1.23-2.4), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.88-2.54), and perception of COVID-19 as a community threat (AOR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.49-2.45). For vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with age (AOR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03-1.05), race/ethnicity (Black-NH and Other-NH were less likely to intend than white-NH, AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.36-0.999; and AOR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24-0.84, respectively), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.45-2.45) and greater perception of collective benefits of vaccines (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.15-1.90). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may have served as a cue to action for influenza vaccination intention among some prior non-vaccinators whereas intention among prior vaccinators is more related to positive attitudes toward vaccination.

Public perceptions of the effectiveness of recommended non-pharmaceutical intervention behaviors to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented public health threat, both in scope and response. With no vaccine available, the public is advised to practice non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) including social distancing, mask-wearing, and washing hands. However, little is known about public perceptions of the effectiveness of these measures, and high perceived effectiveness is likely to be critical in order to achieve widespread adoption of NPI. METHODS: In May 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among U.S. adults (N = 3,474). The primary outcome was a six-item measure assessing perceived effectiveness of recommended behaviors to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection from 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (extremely effective). The sample was divided into "higher" and "lower" perceived effectiveness groups. Covariates included demographics, healthcare characteristics, and health beliefs. Variables that were significant at p<0.01 in bivariate analyses were entered into a multivariable logistic regression and a best-fit model was created using a cutoff of p<0.01 to stay in the model. RESULTS: Mean age was 45.5 years and most participants were non-Hispanic White (63%) and female (52.4%). The high perceived effectiveness group was slightly larger than the low perceived effectiveness group (52.7% vs. 47.3%). Almost all health belief variables were significant in the best-fit regression model. COVID-19-related worry (aOR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.64-2.02), and perceived threat to physical health (aOR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.20-1.45) were positively associated with perceived effectiveness while perceived severity of COVID-19 (0.84; 95% CI = 0.73-0.96) and perceived likelihood of infection (0.85; 95% CI = 0.77-0.94) switched directions in the adjusted model and were negatively associated with perceived effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This research indicates people generally believe NPI are effective, but there was variability based on health beliefs and there are mixed rates of engagement in these behaviors. Public health efforts should focus on increasing perceived severity and threat of SARS-CoV-2-related disease, while promoting NPI as effective in reducing threat.

A National Survey Assessing SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Intentions: Implications for Future Public Health Communication Efforts

With SARS-CoV-2 vaccines under development, research is needed to assess intention to vaccinate. We conducted a survey (N = 3,159) with U.S. adults in May 2020 assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions, intentions with a provider recommendation, and sociodemographic and psychosocial variables. Participants had high SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions (M = 5.23/7-point scale), which increased significantly with a provider recommendation (M = 5.47). Hierarchical linear regression showed that less education and working in health care were associated with lower intent, and liberal political views, altruism, and COVID-19-related health beliefs were associated with higher intent. This work can inform interventions to increase vaccine uptake, ultimately reducing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality.