Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Front Psychol ; 12: 634543, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2270923

ABSTRACT

Communities often unite during a crisis, though some cope by ascribing blame or stigmas to those who might be linked to distressing life events. In a preregistered two-wave survey, we evaluated the dehumanization of Asians and Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our first wave (March 26-April 2, 2020; N = 917) revealed dehumanization was prevalent, between 6.1% and 39% of our sample depending on measurement. Compared to non-dehumanizers, people who dehumanized also perceived the virus as less risky to human health and caused less severe consequences for infected people. They were more likely to be ideologically Conservative and believe in conspiracy theories about the virus. We largely replicated the results 1 month later in our second wave (May 6-May 13, 2020; N = 723). Together, many Americans dehumanize Asians and Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic with related perceptions that the virus is less problematic. Implications and applications for dehumanization theory are discussed.

2.
Intelligence ; 88: 101580, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1351725

ABSTRACT

In two large-scale longitudinal datasets (combined N = 5761), we investigated ability-related political polarization in responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed more polarization with greater ability in emotional responses, risk perceptions, and product-purchase intentions across five waves of data collection with a diverse, convenience sample from February 2020 through July 2020 (Study 1, N = 1267). Specifically, more liberal participants had more negative emotional responses and greater risk perceptions of COVID-19 than conservative participants. Compared to conservatives, liberal participants also interpreted quantitative information as indicating higher COVID-19 risk and sought COVID-related news more from liberal than conservative news media. Of key importance, we also compared verbal and numeric cognitive abilities for their independent capacity to predict greater polarization. Although measures of numeric ability, such as objective numeracy, are often used to index ability-related polarization, ideological differences were more pronounced among those higher in verbal ability specifically. Similar results emerged in secondary analysis of risk perceptions in a nationally representative longitudinal dataset (Study 2, N = 4494; emotions and purchase intentions were not included in this dataset). We further confirmed verbal-ability-related polarization findings on non-COVID policy attitudes (i.e., weapons bans and Medicare-for-all) measured cross-sectionally. The present Study 2 documented ability-related polarization emerging over time for the first time (rather than simply measuring polarization in existing beliefs). Both studies demonstrated verbal ability measures as the most robust predictors of ability-related polarization. Together, these results suggest that polarization may be a function of the amount and/or application of verbal knowledge rather than selective application of quantitative reasoning skills.

3.
JAMA ; 325(14): 1436-1442, 2021 04 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1323838

ABSTRACT

Importance: Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that performs an important role in calcium homeostasis and bone metabolism and also affects many other cellular regulatory functions outside the skeletal system. Vitamin D requirements may vary by individual; thus, no one serum vitamin D level cutpoint defines deficiency, and no consensus exists regarding the precise serum levels of vitamin D that represent optimal health or sufficiency. Objective: To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening for vitamin D deficiency, including the benefits and harms of screening and early treatment. Population: Community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults who have no signs or symptoms of vitamin D deficiency or conditions for which vitamin D treatment is recommended. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the overall evidence on the benefits of screening for vitamin D deficiency is lacking. Therefore, the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. (I statement).


Subject(s)
Mass Screening , Vitamin D Deficiency/diagnosis , Vitamin D/analogs & derivatives , Adult , Asymptomatic Diseases , Humans , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Mass Screening/methods , Vitamin D/blood , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Vitamin D Deficiency/blood , Vitamin D Deficiency/drug therapy , Vitamins/therapeutic use
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(27): 864-869, 2020 Jul 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-640057

ABSTRACT

As of July 5, 2020, approximately 2.8 million coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 130,000 COVID-19-associated deaths had been reported in the United States (1). Populations historically affected by health disparities, including certain racial and ethnic minority populations, have been disproportionally affected by and hospitalized with COVID-19 (2-4). Data also suggest a higher prevalence of infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among persons experiencing homelessness (5). Safety-net hospitals,† such as Boston Medical Center (BMC), which provide health care to persons regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay, treat higher proportions of these populations and might experience challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. This report describes the characteristics and clinical outcomes of adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 treated at BMC during March 1-May 18, 2020. During this time, 2,729 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were treated at BMC and categorized into one of the following mutually exclusive clinical severity designations: exclusive outpatient management (1,543; 56.5%), non-intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization (900; 33.0%), ICU hospitalization without invasive mechanical ventilation (69; 2.5%), ICU hospitalization with mechanical ventilation (119; 4.4%), and death (98; 3.6%). The cohort comprised 44.6% non-Hispanic black (black) patients and 30.1% Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) patients. Persons experiencing homelessness accounted for 16.4% of patients. Most patients who died were aged ≥60 years (81.6%). Clinical severity differed by age, race/ethnicity, underlying medical conditions, and homelessness. A higher proportion of Hispanic patients were hospitalized (46.5%) than were black (39.5%) or non-Hispanic white (white) (34.4%) patients, a finding most pronounced among those aged <60 years. A higher proportion of non-ICU inpatients were experiencing homelessness (24.3%), compared with homeless patients who were admitted to the ICU without mechanical ventilation (15.9%), with mechanical ventilation (15.1%), or who died (15.3%). Patient characteristics associated with illness and clinical severity, such as age, race/ethnicity, homelessness, and underlying medical conditions can inform tailored strategies that might improve outcomes and mitigate strain on the health care system from COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Ill-Housed Persons/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Racial Groups/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Boston/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/ethnology , Female , Hospitals, Urban , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/ethnology , Safety-net Providers , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL