The Role of Risk Perceptions and Affective Consequences in COVID-19 Protective Behaviors.

BACKGROUND: Slowing the spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) requires behavioral changes such as physical distancing (e.g., staying a 6-foot distance from others, avoiding mass gatherings, reducing houseguests), wearing masks, reducing trips to nonessential business establishments, and increasing hand washing. Like other health behaviors, COVID-19 related behaviors may be related to risk representations. Risk representations are the cognitive responses a person holds about illness risk such as, identity (i.e., label/characteristics of risk), cause (i.e., factors causing condition), timeline (i.e., onset/duration of risk), consequences (i.e., intrapersonal/interpersonal outcomes), behavioral efficacy (i.e., if and how the condition can be controlled/treated), and illness risk coherence (i.e., extent to which representations, behaviors, and beliefs are congruent). The current study applies the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM-SR) to evaluate how risk representations may relate to COVID-19 protective and risk behaviors. METHODS: Participants include 400 workers from Amazon's Mechanical Turk aged ≥ 18 years and US residents. Participants completed an online survey measuring risk representations (B-IPQ) and COVID-19 related behaviors, specifically, physical distancing, hand washing, and shopping frequency. RESULTS: Risk coherence, consequences, timeline, emotional representation, and behavioral efficacy were related to risk and protective behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Risk representations vary in their relationship to COVID-19 risk and protective behaviors. Implications include the importance of coherent, targeted, consistent health communication, and effective health policy in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.

The Effects of Racial/Ethnic Minority Status on Sleep, Mood Disturbance, and Depression in People with Fibromyalgia.

PURPOSE: Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a chronic musculoskeletal pain disorder that is characterized by persistent and widespread pain. FMS has been associated with sleep disturbance, mood disorders and depression. Racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to receive a diagnosis of FMS than White individuals. Although mood disorders and depression are prevalent among racial/ethnic minority groups, researchers have not examined whether there are differences between racial/ethnic minorities and White individuals with FMS. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: The participants were 600 people who were 18 years of age or older and who had a physician's diagnosis of FMS, which was confirmed using the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria. Most participants were female (95.5%) and White (85.0%). Sleep disturbance was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), mood disturbance was assessed using the Profile of Mood States (POMS), and depression was assessed via the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). RESULTS: Racial/ethnic minorities reported significantly greater levels of sleep disturbance, significantly greater levels of mood disturbance, and had significantly greater levels of depression than White participants. However, racial/ethnic minorities had significantly greater reductions in mood disturbance over the one-year period than White participants. CONCLUSION: Overall, the findings from the present study indicated that racial/ethnic minorities had "worse" physical and psychological outcomes than White participants.

Known knowns and known unknowns on behavior change interventions and mechanisms of action.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses play an important role in summarising current research on the efficacy of behaviour change interventions and their mechanisms of action. The reviews in this special issue represent a 'step change' in evaluating current evidence on behaviour change interventions and mechanisms. This article outlines the findings and emerging issues identified in the reviews ('known knowns'), and summarises evidence gaps to be addressed in future research ('known unknowns'). Findings indicate that tests of mechanisms of behaviour change interventions are not routinely conducted in primary studies and research syntheses; reviews and studies do not sufficiently account for study quality; substantive variability exists in descriptions of intervention content and putative mediators implicated in their mechanisms of action; limited data is available on the efficacy of many behaviour change techniques; and moderators of intervention effects and mechanisms are seldom taken into account. Possible solutions include testing effects of isolated behaviour change techniques and mechanisms of action; routine evaluation of study quality in behavioural intervention research; development of an evidence base linking behaviour change techniques with theory-based constructs that comprise mechanisms of action; adoption of fit-for-purpose methods for synthesising behavioural intervention mechanisms of action; and routine testing of moderators in intervention research.