COVID-19 booster uptake among US adults: Assessing the impact of vaccine attributes, incentives, and context in a choice-based experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence shows that booster shots offer strong protection against the Omicron variant of COVID-19. However, we know little about why individuals would receive a booster compared to the initial decision to vaccinate. We investigate and assess the factors that affect individuals' reported willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine booster. This information can aid in tailoring public health messaging to communicate attributes that are associated with individuals' attitudes toward the COVID-19 booster. RATIONALE: Existing research provides little insight into whether the same factors that affect Americans' likelihood of accepting initial vaccination against COVID-19 also affect booster uptake. Our experiment also examines the influence of contextual information about a novel variant on willingness to receive a booster. METHODS: We administered a conjoint experiment (N = 2740 trials) in a survey of fully vaccinated US adults that had not yet received a COVID-19 booster (N = 548) to assess the impact of varied vaccine attributes on willingness to receive a booster. RESULTS: The most important factors associated with higher willingness to receive a booster were efficacy, manufacturer, and the size of a financial incentive. Protection duration and protection against future variants vs. only current variants had modest influence. A contextual prime reporting that some public health experts believe the Omicron variant is more contagious, but less lethal than those previously seen, significantly increased favorability toward boosters. This provides potential motivation and guidance for vaccination campaigns to emphasize these variant-specific traits. CONCLUSION: With several vaccines with varying degrees of efficacy available to consumers, emphasizing boosters with a high efficacy would likely improve attitudes toward boosters. Financial incentives and predispositions toward manufacturers also matter. Concerns about more contagious variants may spur uptake, even if such variants are less lethal.

"The better you feel, the harder you fall": Health perception biases and mental health among Chinese adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The health risks of the current COVID-19 pandemic, together with the drastic mitigation measures taken in many affected nations, pose an obvious threat to public mental health. To assess predictors of poor mental health in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study first implements survey-based measures of health perception biases among Chinese adults during the pandemic. Then, it analyzes their relation to three mental health outcomes: life satisfaction, happiness, and depression (as measured by the CES-D). We show that the health overconfidence displayed by approximately 30% of the survey respondents is a clear risk factor for mental health problems; it is a statistically significant predictor of depression and low levels of happiness and life satisfaction. We also document that these effects are stronger in regions that experienced higher numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths. Our results offer clear guidelines for the implementation of effective interventions to temper health overconfidence, particularly in uncontrollable situations like the COVID-19 pandemic.

How the COVID-19 Pandemic Will Change Workplaces, Healthcare Markets and Healthy Living: An Overview and Assessment

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted most aspects of our lives: how we work, how we socialize, how we provide health care, and how we take care of our most vulnerable members of society. In this perspectives article, we provide a multidisciplinary overview of existing research covering these fields. Moreover, we enrich this research overview with news reporting and insights from a panel of expert practitioners affiliated with the Cornell Institute for Healthy Futures. We sketch existing evidence, focusing on how the pandemic has transformed our lives since March 2020. Then, for each of the fields covered by this article, we propose optimistic perspectives on what healthy living could look like in the future, given the current challenges and opportunities. In particular, we discuss the needed transformations of our workplaces, the health care market, senior living, healthy eating, and personal wellness.

Awareness and use of (emergency) sick leave: US employees' unaddressed sick leave needs in a global pandemic.

We study US sick leave use and unaddressed sick leave needs in the midst of the global severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS COV 2) pandemic based on a representative survey. More than half of all US employees are unaware of the new emergency sick leave options provided by the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). Awareness and take-up rates are significantly higher among Asian Americans and lower among the foreign-born. About 8 million employees used emergency sick leave in the first 6 to 8 mo. Nevertheless, the share of employees who needed but could not take paid sick leave tripled in the pandemic; unaddressed sick leave needs total 15 million employees per month and are 69% higher among women. Our findings show that access to paid sick leave significantly reduces unaddressed sick leave needs. We conclude that given the fragmented US sick leave landscape, to address the strong increase in unaddressed sick leave needs during the pandemic, federal FFCRA response was not adequate.

COVID-19 Emergency Sick Leave Has Helped Flatten The Curve In The United States.

This analysis examines whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency sick leave provision of the bipartisan Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) reduced the spread of the virus. Using a difference-in-differences strategy, we compared changes in newly reported COVID-19 cases in states where workers gained the right to take paid sick leave (treatment group) versus in states where workers already had access to paid sick leave (control group) before the FFCRA. We adjusted for differences in testing, day-of-the-week reporting, structural state differences, general virus dynamics, and policies such as stay-at-home orders. Compared with the control group and relative to the pre-FFCRA period, states that gained access to paid sick leave through the FFCRA saw around 400 fewer confirmed cases per state per day. This estimate translates into roughly one prevented case per day per 1,300 workers who had newly gained the option to take up to two weeks of paid sick leave.