Perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 in Tennessee, USA: a retrospective study.

Background: Despite high incidence and mortality risks associated with COVID-19 during the pandemic, stay-at-home orders and vaccination recommendations were met with varying levels of acceptance in Tennessee. Understanding perceptions of individuals regarding the health and economic impacts of COVID-19 is necessary to address public concerns while ensuring appropriate public health response. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (a) investigate differences in opinions among residents of Tennessee regarding the impacts of COVID-19; and (b) identify socioeconomic and demographic predictors/determinants of these opinions. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using survey data collected in nine waves during 2020. Distributions of survey-weighted sociodemographic characteristics and respondent perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 were computed. Weighted logistic models were used to investigate predictors of a number of perceptions: whether the health or economic impact was greater, concern for respondent's health, concern for family's health, and willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccine. Results: The study included a total of 9,754 survey respondents. Approximately equal percentages considered COVID-19 to have a greater economic (48.4%) versus health impact (51.6%). Just 40.1% of the respondents reported that they would definitely accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Age group, race, educational attainment, and household composition were significant (p < 0.05) predictors of all investigated perceptions regarding COVID-19. Lack of prior infection was the strongest predictor of the perception of COVID-19 having a greater impact on health (OR = 2.40, p < 0.001), concern for respondent's health (OR = 1.86, p = 0.002), and concern for family members' health (OR = 1.90, p = 0.001). Compared to males, females had higher odds of identifying the health impact of COVID-19 as greater (OR = 1.09, p = 0.041) and reporting concern for family health (OR = 1.14, p = 0.003). However, they had lower odds (OR = 0.63, p < 0.001) of willingness to accept vaccine than males. Conclusion: These findings improve our understanding of the drivers of health behaviors, including vaccine hesitancy, and are useful for guiding public health outreach/education programs.

An exploratory assessment of human and animal health concerns of smallholder farmers in rural communities of Chimborazo, Ecuador.

BACKGROUND: Livestock play important economic and cultural roles in smallholder communities of Ecuador, yet they also serve as potential sources of zoonotic infections. Understanding the animal and human health concerns of smallholder farmers is important in guiding strategies for improvement of the health and livelihoods of these resource-poor farmers. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: (a) assess the health concerns of smallholder farmers; (b) explore animal and waste management practices; and (c) identify predictors of pediatric and livestock diarrhea on smallholder farms in Ecuador. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey of 58 smallholder farmers in three communities of Chimborazo province, Ecuador. Data were collected on household demographics, smallholding characteristics, type of animals owned, human-animal interactions, health concerns, and 30-day occurrence of human as well as animal diarrhea. Summary statistics were computed and logistic models used to investigate predictors of pediatric and animal diarrhea. RESULTS: All respondents reported keeping animals. Animals kept included cattle, pigs, poultry, dogs, guinea pigs, cats, sheep, horses, rabbits, donkeys, or other livestock. More than half of the respondents named diseases as their greatest personal (55.2%) or family (58.6%) health concern, while an even greater percentage (60.3%) reported physiological stress as the primary health concern for their animals. Occurrence of diarrhea in the 30 days prior to the study was reported by 12.1% of the respondents. Additionally, 15.2% and 55.2% of the households reported diarrhea among children and animals, respectively. The majority (65.5%) of the households had toilets, while the remainder had either latrines (27.6%) or no sanitation facilities (6.9%). However, only 9.1% of the smallholdings had either a toilet (3.6%) or a latrine (5.5%) onsite and yet the farmers tended to spend most of the day at the smallholdings. Potential exposures to gastrointestinal pathogens included food- or water-borne sources (93.5% of children; 91.4% of adults) and blood-borne or fecal sources (80.4% of children; 100% of adults). Although 98.3% of the respondents kept cattle, only 27.6% had animal enclosures and even fewer (15.5%) had animal waste management plans. The odds of animal diarrhea were significantly higher (Odds Ratio [OR] = 8.7; 95% Confidence Interval [1.0-75.0]; p = .049) among households that had animal waste management plans compared to those that did not. None of the variables investigated were significant predictors of pediatric diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing surveillance is needed to develop estimates of diarrhea incidence among smallholder families and their livestock. The impact of different animal management strategies on the potential pathogen exposure of smallholders warrants further investigations. Improving sanitation infrastructure and animal waste management strategies is recommended.