Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine non-intent by essential vs non-essential worker, demographic, and socioeconomic status among 101,048 US adults.

As of May 2021, over 286 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine doses have been administered across the country. This data is promising, however there are still populations that, despite availability, are declining vaccination. We reviewed vaccine likelihood and receptiveness to recommendation from a doctor or nurse survey responses from 101,048 adults (≥18 years old) presenting to 442 primary care clinics in 8 states and the District of Columbia. Occupation was self-reported and demographic information extracted from the medical record, with 58.3% (n = 58,873) responding they were likely to receive the vaccine, 23.6% (n = 23,845) unlikely, and 18.1% (n = 18,330) uncertain. We found that essential workers were 18% less likely to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. Of those who indicated they were not already "very likely" to receive the vaccine, a recommendation from a nurse or doctor resulted in 16% of respondents becoming more likely to receive the vaccine, although certain occupations were less likely than others to be receptive to recommendations. To our knowledge, this is the first study to look at vaccine intent and receptiveness to recommendations from a doctor or nurse across specific essential worker occupations, and may help inform future early phase, vaccine rollouts and public health measure implementations.

Use of Well-Being in Identification of Members With Future Health Risk Factors and Future Diagnosed Chronic Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if well-being is associated with the development of future health risks or incidence of new chronic disease. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was employed using longitudinal well-being assessment survey data from participants of a Fortune 500 US company wellness program, claims based International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnoses, and Cox proportional hazards models to assess associations between well-being and well-being change with future health risk and chronic disease incidence. RESULTS: Individuals who maintained high well-being and those who increased their level of well-being displayed a significantly decreased hazard of accruing new health risk and new chronic disease incidence; those whose well-being worsened over time showed significant increases in health risk and hazard of new chronic disease incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Well-being levels and change over time are significantly associated with future development of health risk and disease incidence.

The well-being valuation model: a method for monetizing the nonmarket good of individual well-being.

The objective of this research is to advance the evaluation and monetization of well-being improvement programs, offered by population health management companies, by presenting a novel method that robustly monetizes the entirety of well-being improvement within a population. This was achieved by utilizing two employers' well-being assessments with medical and pharmacy administrative claims (2010-2011) across a large national employer (n = 50,647) and regional employer (n = 6170) data sets. This retrospective study sought to monetize both direct and indirect value of well-being improvement across a population whose medical costs are covered by an employer, insurer, and/or government entity. Logistic regression models were employed to estimate disease incidence rates and input-output modelling was used to measure indirect effects of well-being improvement. These methodological components removed the burden of specifying an exhaustive number of regression models, which would be difficult in small populations. Members who improved their well-being were less likely to become diseased. This reduction saved, per avoided occurrence, US$3060 of total annual health care costs. Of the members who were diseased, improvement in well-being equated to annual savings of US$62 while non-diseased members saved US$26. The method established here demonstrates the linkage between improved well-being and improved outcomes while maintaining applicability in varying populations.

What's Mine is Yours: Evaluation of Shared Well-Being Among Married Couples and the Dyadic Influence on Individual Well-Being Change.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between partner well-being and outcomes of chronically diseased individuals participating in an employer sponsored well-being improvement program. METHODS: Using the Actor Partner Interdependence Model, we evaluated whether prior partner well-being was associated with well-being change among 2025 couples. Logistic regression models were then used to explore how spousal well-being risks relate to development and elimination of risks among program participants. RESULTS: High well-being partners were associated with positive well-being change. Specifically, the partner effect for spouses' high well-being on disease management participants was a 1.5 point higher well-being in the following time period (P = 0.001) while the partner effect of participants' high well-being on spouses was nearly 1.1 points (P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Well-being within couples is interdependent, and partner well-being is an important predictor of individual well-being change.