Lessons Learned from Health Disparities in Coronavirus Disease-2019 in the United States.

In the United States, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionally affected Black, Latinx, and Indigenous populations, immigrants, and economically disadvantaged individuals. Such historically marginalized groups are more often employed in low-wage jobs without health insurance and have higher rates of infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 than non-Latinx White individuals. Mistrust in the health care system, language barriers, and limited health literacy have hindered vaccination rates in minorities, further exacerbating health disparities rooted in structural, institutional, and socioeconomic inequities. In this article, we discuss the lessons learned over the last 2 years and how to mitigate health disparities moving forward.

Commentary on the special issue on disproportionate exposure to trauma: Trauma, stress, and adversities and health disparities among disenfranchised groups globally during the COVID pandemic.

The papers in this Journal of Traumatic Stress special issue on disproportionate adversity cover the gamut of discrimination traumas and stressors, including microaggressions, a more insidious forms of discrimination, and their often-devastating and wide-ranging mental health sequelae, in disproportionately affected disenfranchised groups. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation commonly confers cumulative and chronic effects. In the field of traumatic stress studies, several types of identity-linked traumatic events have been identified and empirically investigated as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-producing experiences. Collectively, the 13 papers included in this special issue raise questions about the definition, conceptualization, and categorization of various forms of explicit and implicit identity-linked trauma. These papers highlight the need for acceptance of a shared nomenclature and better differentiation of both causal and correlational associations with acute and chronic PTSD, depression, suicide risk, alcohol misuse, and other mental health outcomes. In this commentary, the discussion is extended to COVID-19, a disease that has been globally devastating for many. On multiple levels (i.e., physical, mental, emotional, economic, and social), COVID-19 has magnified the prepandemic fault lines of race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Applying a syndemic framework to the health impact of COVID-19 and, arguably, the most pervasive identity linked epidemic worldwide-systemic racism-brings perspective to the biological and social forces that are likely to be driving the convergence of COVID-19, systemic racism, and chronic health inequities, and may be informative in guiding evidence-based strategies for managing racial trauma in the context of COVID-19.

Social Distance in COVID-19: Drawing the line between protective behavior and stigma manifestation.

Social stigma has long been defined by Ervin Goffman as an attribute that it is deeply discrediting and reduces the individual who bears it from a whole and usual person to a tarnished one, unfit to be included into the mainstream society.1 As stigma spans time and space and has been documented in other social species such as ants and chimpanzees, one might argue for its adaptive potential. Neuberg and colleagues2 have suggested that humans generate stigmas against threats to effective group functioning, with a notable case being infectious diseases. A similar explanation has been put forward by other researchers who consider stigma to have evolved from disease-avoidance mechanisms.3 Hence, it is not surprising that tuberculosis, HIV and leprosy have been surrounded by stigma and discrimination.4,5 More recently, people who had survived the 2013-2016 Ebola outbreak tackled social exclusion and unemployment after returning to their neighborhoods.6 Nowadays, the global community faces an unprecedented challenge of grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic. From the very outset, social distance measures were introduced in order to contain the spread of the virus, ranging from maintaining 1.5 meters physical distance to strict lockdowns. However, this may easily escalate into stigmatizing and discriminatory behaviours (desired social distance is a proxy of discrimination) against people who have suffered from COVID-19, their relatives and their caregivers, with the United Nations stating that "fear, rumours and stigma" are the key challenges surrounding COVID-19.7 Apart from the psychological distress experienced by the stigmatized individuals, due to anticipated stigma people might start concealing their illness, avoid or delay seeking medical advice or testing until they are seriously ill and be reluctant to collaborate with authorities on tracing contacts. Therefore, timely identifying stigma and addressing it is an integral part of an effective health response to the ongoing pandemic. In spite of its importance, research on COVID-19 related stigma is scarce. From the perspective of the stigmatized individuals, a study in China8 demonstrated that COVID-19 survivors faced heightened levels of overall stigma, social rejection, financial insecurity, internalized shame and social isolation, compared to healthy controls. From the perspective of the general population, a study in US9 substantiated low levels of anticipated stigma and stereotype endorsement; however, respondents who anticipated greater stigma were less likely to seek a COVID-19 test. It is therefore clear that the international literature is still on its infancy with respect to COVID-19 related stigma. In this context, in the First Department of Psychiatry, University of Athens, we conducted a survey on public attitudes to COVID-19 and to mental disorders. The study would inform the design and implementation of anti-stigma initiatives, funded by the Regional Governor of Attica. As physical distancing and social distancing are interwoven, with some researchers and practitioners using the terms interchangeably, and social distancing is also a protective public health measure against COVID-19, we enquired about attitudes and desired social distance from people who had recovered from COVID-19. Nonetheless, it merits noting that evidence from other diseases indicates that stigma may persist even after recovery.10 Moreover, rather than describing public attitudes overall, we were more interested in investigating where COVID-19 related stigma stands as compared to the most stigmatizing health condition to date, i.e., severe mental illness.11 Interestingly enough, which elements of severe mental illness render it the most stigmatized as compared to other conditions is still speculative: is it the fear of madness? the severity and the type of symptoms? the purported incurability or its chronicity? In our study, evidence from a convenience sample of 370 residents of Attica indicates that the general population holds more negative attitudes towards people who have recovered from COVID-19 than towards people with mental disorders. Nonetheless, respondents reported lower levels of desired social distance from recovered COVID-19 cases as compared to mental illness cases in social interactions of graded intimacy; however, the difference between the two groups was found to decrease as the level of intimacy decreased as well. In other words, desired social distance from COVID-19 cases is more easily discernible in transient social encounters, like talking to a stranger. It is therefore clear that social distance is still a public health protective measure rather than a stigma manifestation. For social encounters of greater intimacy, usually a sign of discriminatory behaviours, having recovered from COVID-19 is not a deterrent to interaction. Findings can be explained by the acute (non-chronic) nature of the disease, both in terms of symptoms as well as the 10-day period since symptom onset for being contagious. Nonetheless, with emerging evidence substantiating the notion of long COVID-19, defined as the persistence of symptoms for 3 weeks after infection,12 this might quickly change. Moreover, with many public health protective measures available, such as the use of mask, diagnostic testing and vaccination, people who become infected are more likely to be blamed for contracting the disease and thus deemed responsible for this, in line with the Attribution Theory.13 Specifically, overarching evidence from stigma research in many diseases/conditions indicates that when an illness or a social condition, such as economic disadvantage, is attributed to internal causes, as compared to external, lay people are more likely to hold stigmatizing attitudes.14-16 Therefore, as attitudes towards COVID-19 are worse compared to those towards people with mental illness, if tailored anti-stigma action is not undertaken, it is only a matter of time for prejudices to evolve into discriminatory behaviours, with devastating consequences on both the individuals and the course of the pandemic. Concomitantly, as severe mental illness is neither life threatening nor contagious, but COVID-19 is, it is interesting to explore how stigma is related to evolutionary mechanisms favouring adaptability and survival as well as which elements are the drivers of stigma development and establishment. Therefore, comparing and contrasting the stigma surrounding these conditions may shed light on the underpinnings of social stigma and facilitate effective interventions to reduce it and eventually eliminate it.

Healthcare workers' distress and perceived discrimination related to COVID-19 in Colombia.

This study examined the association of perceived discrimination related to COVID-19 with psychological distress in healthcare workers in the Colombian Caribbean region. The authors designed and conducted a cross-sectional study, recruiting a non-probabilistic sample by email or instant messaging. Participants filled out a questionnaire including scales for perceived discrimination, anxiety, depression, perceived stress related to COVID-19, and suicide risk. Healthcare workers (n = 150) aged 18 to 68 years participated; of these, 72% were women, and the breakdown by occupation was 39.3% nursing assistants, 18.0% nurses, and 42.7% physicians. Perceived discrimination scores showed positive correlations with depressive symptoms among nursing assistants and physicians (rs  = 0.34), and suicide risk in nursing assistants (rs  = 0.35) and physicians (rs  = 0.31). Among nurses, all measurements were independent of perceived discrimination. Nursing assistants scored highest in perceived discrimination. Physicians scored higher for COVID-19 perceived stress than nursing assistants, and nurses showed similar scores to physicians. In conclusion, perceived discrimination is related to depressive symptoms and suicide risk among nursing assistants and physicians. Nursing assistants report more perceived discrimination than nurses and physicians.

Effects of COVID-19 lockdown on perceived discrimination and internalized stigma in people with previous mental disorder diagnoses in Spain.

COVID-19 disease control efforts and consequences are likely to be complicated by the impact of fear and stigmatization of the novel coronavirus. These complications may also worsen due to the potential compounding of COVID-19 related stigma with stigmatization associated with previously diagnosed conditions. This exploratory study analyzes the experiences of the stigma associated with COVID-19 lockdown in people with different previous diagnoses 2 and 5 weeks after the beginning of the state of emergency in Spain. Gender and age were controlled as covariables and 1,052 people participated in the study. The diagnosis groups were: Psychiatry and mental health (n = 71), Cardiovascular disease (n = 42), Neurological disease (n = 23), Lung disease (n = 53), and No diagnosis (n = 863). The instruments used to measure the stigma were the Intersectional Day-to-Day Discrimination Index and two items of the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness scale. Analysis of covariance of repeated measures and analysis of variance, including Scheffe's post hoc test, were performed. We found significant differences in stigma among the first and second evaluation. Regarding the previous diagnosis, no differences were found at Time 1, but significant differences were found at Time 2, with those having a previous psychiatric or mental health diagnosis reporting higher levels of perceived discrimination and internalized stigmatization. Our results suggest that people with previous stigmatizing conditions might be more vulnerable to experiencing stigma in a confinement situation. In order to reduce the burden of the COVID-19 stigma, health interventions should also consider the resulting intersection of effects on internalized stigma and perceived discrimination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Structural distress: experiences of moral distress related to structural stigma during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a significant toll on the health of structurally vulnerable patient populations as well as healthcare workers. The concepts of structural stigma and moral distress are important and interrelated, yet rarely explored or researched in medical education. Structural stigma refers to how discrimination towards certain groups is enacted through policy and practice. Moral distress describes the tension and conflict that health workers experience when they are unable to fulfil their duties due to circumstances outside of their control. In this study, the authors explored how resident physicians perceive moral distress in relation to structural stigma. An improved understanding of such experiences may provide insights into how to prepare future physicians to improve health equity. METHODS: Utilizing constructivist grounded theory methodology, 22 participants from across Canada including 17 resident physicians from diverse specialties and 5 faculty members were recruited for semi-structured interviews from April-June 2020. Data were analyzed using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Results describe a distinctive form of moral distress called structural distress, which centers upon the experience of powerlessness leading resident physicians to go above and beyond the call of duty, potentially worsening their psychological well-being. Faculty play a buffering role in mitigating the impact of structural distress by role modeling vulnerability and involving residents in policy decisions. CONCLUSION: These findings provide unique insights into teaching and learning about the care of structurally vulnerable populations and faculty's role related to resident advocacy and decision-making. The concept of structural distress may provide the foundation for future research into the intersection between resident well-being and training related to health equity.

Disclosure experience among COVID-19-confirmed patients in China: A qualitative study.

AIM: To understand COVID patients' experiences of and perspectives on disclosure of their illness and to explore and describe the factors affecting disclosure decisions among COVID patients in China. BACKGROUND: Disease disclosure is a critical component of prevention and control of a virus outbreak, and this is especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding COVID patients' experiences and perspectives on disclosure could play a vital role in COVID management. DESIGN: A qualitative study. METHODS: A semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct qualitative in-depth interviews from April to June 2020. All the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and then, a thematic analysis was conducted. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) were applied to this study. RESULTS: A total of 26 COVID-confirmed patients were recruited for the in-depth interviews. Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis on disclosure: persons disclosed to, reasons for disclosure, reasons for nondisclosure and impact of disclosure. The participants disclosed their COVID diagnosis to different groups, including family, close friends, community members and workplace contacts. The main reasons for disclosure included the following: government policy, social responsibility, gaining support and fear of being blamed for nondisclosure. However, some participants decided not to disclose to some groups for fear of facing stigma and discrimination or to protect family members from discrimination. Despite the potential benefits of obtaining support after disclosure, many participants did experience stigma and discrimination, privacy exposure, psychological distress and social isolation. CONCLUSIONS: An individual's decision as to whether to disclose their COVID-positive status is affected by many factors. To prevent the spread of COVID-19 and reduce the potential risks of disclosure, such as discrimination and privacy exposure, a balanced intervention should be designed to protect COVID patients and to secure any contact tracing. Therefore, the chances of discrimination could be decreased and patients' confidentiality could be protected. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: As the number of COVID patients increases, disclosure of an individual's infectious status is encouraged by health departments. Despite the potential benefits of disclosure, discrimination and privacy exposure should not be ignored. A disclosure protocol is necessary to ensure patients' privacy regarding their COVID status.

Social Distancing to Mitigate COVID-19 Risks Is Associated With COVID-19 Discriminatory Attitudes Among People Living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is an emerging pandemic with heightened concerns for people with compromised immune systems, including people living with HIV. PURPOSE: In the absence of a vaccine, public health messaging to mitigate risks for COVID-19 primarily focuses on social distancing. Because people living with HIV commonly experience mistreatment associated with HIV, their response to social distancing may be complicated by psychosocial attitudes associated with COVID-19. METHODS: To evaluate these relationships, we conducted a rapid-response, cross-sectional survey with people living with HIV (N = 149) to assess social distancing practices, COVID-19 discriminatory attitudes, COVID-19 xenophobic attitudes, HIV microaggressions, and concern over contracting COVID-19. Data were collected from participants enrolled in a larger ongoing study between March 30, 2020 and April 17, 2020. RESULTS: Results indicated that choosing to socially distance to reduce COVID-19 exposure was associated with COVID-19 discriminatory attitudes, concerns of contracting COVID-19, and identifying as transgender. Likewise, social distancing imposed by others (e.g., cancelations and restrictions) was associated with concerns of contracting COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate that social distancing measures are related to concerns of contracting the virus and discriminatory attitudes toward those who are presumed to be living with COVID-19. These potentially negative psychosocial attitudes toward people perceived to have COVID-19 echo the discriminatory actions and attitudes that we continue to observe in HIV social sciences research.

COVID-19-Related Infodemic and Its Impact on Public Health: A Global Social Media Analysis.

Infodemics, often including rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories, have been common during the COVID-19 pandemic. Monitoring social media data has been identified as the best method for tracking rumors in real time and as a possible way to dispel misinformation and reduce stigma. However, the detection, assessment, and response to rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories in real time are a challenge. Therefore, we followed and examined COVID-19-related rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories circulating on online platforms, including fact-checking agency websites, Facebook, Twitter, and online newspapers, and their impacts on public health. Information was extracted between December 31, 2019 and April 5, 2020, and descriptively analyzed. We performed a content analysis of the news articles to compare and contrast data collected from other sources. We identified 2,311 reports of rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories in 25 languages from 87 countries. Claims were related to illness, transmission and mortality (24%), control measures (21%), treatment and cure (19%), cause of disease including the origin (15%), violence (1%), and miscellaneous (20%). Of the 2,276 reports for which text ratings were available, 1,856 claims were false (82%). Misinformation fueled by rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories can have potentially serious implications on the individual and community if prioritized over evidence-based guidelines. Health agencies must track misinformation associated with the COVID-19 in real time, and engage local communities and government stakeholders to debunk misinformation.

Perceived Discrimination and Mental Distress Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From the Understanding America Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines COVID-19-associated discrimination regardless of infection status. It evaluates the contribution of various risk factors (e.g., race/ethnicity and wearing a face mask) and the relationship with mental distress among U.S. adults in March and April 2020, when the pandemic escalated across the country. METHODS: Participants consisted of a probability-based, nationally representative sample of U.S. residents aged ≥18 years who completed COVID-19-related surveys online in March and April (n=3,665). Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict the probability of a person perceiving COVID-19-associated discrimination. Linear regression was used to analyze the association between discrimination and mental distress. Analyses were conducted in May 2020. RESULTS: Perception of COVID-19-associated discrimination increased from March (4%) to April (10%). Non-Hispanic Black (absolute risk from 0.09 to 0.15 across months) and Asians (absolute risk from 0.11 to 0.17) were more likely to perceive discrimination than other racial/ethnic groups (absolute risk from 0.03 to 0.11). Individuals who wore face masks (absolute risk from 0.11 to 0.14) also perceived more discrimination than those who did not (absolute risk from 0.04 to 0.11). Perceiving discrimination was subsequently associated with increased mental distress (from 0.77 to 1.01 points on the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire score). CONCLUSIONS: Perception of COVID-19-associated discrimination was relatively low but increased with time. Perceived discrimination was associated with race/ethnicity and wearing face masks and may contribute to greater mental distress during early stages of the pandemic. The long-term implications of this novel form of discrimination should be monitored.