Maternal Functioning and Psychological Distress During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Our objective was to understand maternal functioning and psychological distress among mothers of young children in the United States during April/May 2020, early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and Methods: Participants were 862 moms of children aged 0-3 years old who completed an online survey. We examined maternal functioning (maternal competency and self-care subscales from the Barkin Index of Maternal Functioning) and psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and stress subscales of the DASS-21), and then examined interaction effects of COVID-19 impact and socioeconomic status (SES; represented by income and education). Results: Mothers' reports of higher maternal functioning correlated with lower psychological distress and both sets of factors varied substantially by SES and COVID-19 Impact. Higher COVID-19 Impact was associated with lower functioning and greater distress. Higher income and education were associated with better maternal self-care, but not maternal competency. Although we expected high SES to buffer mothers from a higher impact of COVID-19, we found that mothers with high SES reported a lower level of maternal competence and more stress than low-SES mothers. Interactions between COVID-19 impact and SES predicting maternal functioning and psychological distress revealed that when COVID-19 impact was low, high SES was associated with high functioning scores and less distress. Conclusions: This work challenges the assumptions that a stressful event will be uniformly experienced by mothers of young children as well as the stress-buffering role of higher SES. This study highlights the importance of considering SES when characterizing maternal functioning and psychological distress during times of high stress. Further research is needed to examine the processes contributing to these discrepancies.

Caregiver Perceptions of Change in Pediatric Asthma Control During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose: Although several indicators suggest that pediatric asthma control in the United States improved early in the pandemic, other indicators suggest not. Missing are reports from caregivers of the experiences of their children with asthma early in the pandemic. Methods: Using the PP-ACT and other measures that we specifically constructed for our research, we conducted a cross-sectional national survey of US caregivers of children with asthma (N=595) to examine perceived change in their child's asthma control and changes in reports of ED visits and use of emergency relief medicine and controller medicine pre-pandemic (January to March 2020) versus early-pandemic (June to September 2020). Results: Caregivers fell into three groups: most caregivers perceived that their child's asthma control was improved (50.3%) or unchanged (41.2%), and few reported worse control (8.5%). Surprisingly, all three groups of caregivers reported similar frequencies of early-pandemic and pre-pandemic ED visits and use of emergency relief medicine. Also surprising, caregivers who perceived their child's asthma as more controlled (compared with the other two groups) reported more frequent ED visits and use of emergency relief medicine, yet also more use of controller medicine at both early-pandemic and pre-pandemic. Conclusion: The mismatch between caregivers' perceptions of their child's early-pandemic asthma control and their reports of ED visits and use of emergency relief medicine suggests that caregivers may rely on a gist (a global evaluation that can include nonbiomedical evidence) when estimating their child's asthma control. Caregivers and their families could benefit from help from clinicians in understanding the discrepancy between subjective asthma control and asthma control indicators and in understanding what well-controlled asthma looks and feels like.

Causal Modeling of Descriptive Social Norms from Twitter and the Physical World on Expressed Attitudes Change: A Case Study of COVID-19 Vaccination.

The high infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 makes it urgent to promote vaccination among the public. Previous studies found that people tend to follow the behaviors desired in descriptive social norms, which exist in both social media (e.g., Twitter) and physical-world communities. However, it remains unclear whether and to what extent the descriptive social norms from the cyber and physical communities affect people's attitude change. This study, focusing on COVID-19 vaccination, developed a Directed Acyclic Graphs model to investigate the causal effects of the descriptive social norms of (i) Twitterverse and (ii) physical-world communities on people's attitude change as well as the temporal scales of the effects. It used a Long Short-Term Memory classifier to extract expressed attitudes and changes from relevant tweets posted by 843 sample users. We found that a people's attitude change toward the vaccination receives a more significant impact from Twitter-based descriptive social norms over the prior week, whereas the norms in the physical-world communities tend to be less influential but still notable with the time gap between 2 weeks and 1 month. The findings revealed the potential of using online social norm approaches to proactively motivate behavioral changes toward a culture of health.

Culture, COVID-19, and collectivism: A paradox of American exceptionalism?

Do geographic differences in collectivism relate to COVID-19 case and death rates? And if so, would they also replicate across states within arguably the most individualistic country in the world-the United States? Further still, what role might the U.S.'s history of ethnic strife and race-based health disparities play in either reinforcing or undermining state-level relations between collectivism and COVID-19 rates? To answer these questions, we examined archival data from 98 countries (Study 1) and the 48 contiguous United States (Study 2) on country/state-level collectivism, COVID-19 case/death rates, relevant covariates (per-capita GDP, population density, spatial dependence), and in the U.S., percent of non-Whites. In Study 1, country-level collectivism negatively related to both cases (r = -0.28) and deaths (r = -0.40) in simple regressions; however, after controlling for covariates, the former became non-significant (r p = -0.07), but the latter remained significant (r p = -0.20). In Study 2, state-level collectivism positively related to both cases (r = 0.56) and deaths (r = 0.41) in simple regressions, and these relationships persisted after controlling for all covariates except race, where a state's non-White population dominated all other predictors of COVID-19 cases (r p = 0.35) and deaths (r p = 0.31). We discuss the strong link between race and collectivism in U.S. culture, and its implications for understanding COVID-19 responses.