The global COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted public health and socio-economic development worldwide. This study aims to investigate the effects of non-healthcare system interventions on the daily new cases of COVID-19 from January 2020 to October 2022.

With the aid of multilevel approach, we identified income group, region and country as stratification factors that affect the number of COVID-19 daily new cases. Data on COVID-19 cases collected by Johns Hopkins University were used, and policy implementation details were recorded through the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker dataset. To analyze the effects of national, regional, and income group factors on the number of daily new COVID-19 cases, we implemented three multilevel sequential mixed-effects models and applied restricted maximum likelihood to estimate the variance of random effects.

Our results indicate a correlation between income group and the rise in intercepts of random effects in the multilevel sequential mixed-effects models. High-income countries recorded the highest intercept at 713.26, while low-income countries showed the lowest at -313.79. Under the influence of policies, the implementation of "Canceling public events" and "International travel restrictions" has been shown to significantly reduce the daily number of new COVID-19 cases. In contrast, "Restrictions on gatherings" appear to have the opposite effect, potentially leading to an increase in daily new COVID-19 cases.

In designing epidemic control policies, due consideration should be given to factors such as income group, as well as medical, demographic, and social differences among nations influenced by economic factors. In policy-making, policymakers should pay greater attention to policy implementation and people's responses, in order to maximize the effectiveness and adherence of such policies.

BackgroundNon-Hispanic Black and African American men are more likely to have Alzheimer's disease (AD) than non-Hispanic White peers. Despite this, little is known about how Black and African American men perceive dementia risk, which is foundational to prevention.ObjectiveAcknowledging that personal vantage point influences behavior, our study examined Black and African American male perceptions about their anticipated risk for AD.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of Black and African American adult male responses to the Recruitment Innovations for Diversity Enhancement electronic survey study. We examined associations between perceived risk of AD and age, education, employment status, household income adequacy, marital status, living status, prior experience with AD, and subjective memory performance using generalized linear models.ResultsRespondents (n = 112) were age 18 to 79 years (M = 51.05, SD = 13.44), and 35% reported prior experience with AD through a friend or family member. Respondents' perceived risk of developing AD ranged from 0 to 100% (M = 33.46, SD = 28.29). Spearman rho correlations revealed modest but significant correlations between perceived risk and age (r = 21, p = 0.03) and marital status (r = -0.22 p = 0.02). The best fitting generalized linear model revealed low perceived risk for AD was associated with younger age, income adequacy and being married or living as married (χ2 = 8.76, p = 0.03).ConclusionSelected social determinants of health were associated with perceived risk. Future studies should examine additional social determinants of health (e.g., social and physical environment) and measures of cognitive and physical health to further explore relationships with perceived risk of AD in Black and African American males.

Vaccine hesitancy is a major challenge in the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Identifying the sociodemographic factors associated with vaccine acceptance among Nigerians is crucial for improving vaccine uptake.

To assess the acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccine and its related determinants among Nigerians.

An online cross-sectional survey (observational study) was conducted between February 2021 and May 2021, using a questionnaire hosted on SurveyMonkey. The invitation to take part in the poll was sent out to participants through social networking platforms. A logistic regression was used to determine which sociodemographic factors were associated with vaccine acceptance constructs.

A total of 1800 persons responded to the survey, a larger proportion of whom were males (53.9%) and within the age group of 21-30 years (29.4%) and earned an average income of less than $500 per month (43.3%). Only 0.56% of participants had a high perceived risk of COVID-19 infection, while only 1.11% had a perceived risk of dying from COVID-19. The perception rate of the COVID-19 vaccine among participants was 51.1%, while the acceptance rate was 63.9%. There was no significant association between the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate and related determinants assessed, particularly age (χ² = 3.049, P = 0.550), sex (χ² = 0.102, P = 0.749), average income (χ² = 3.802, P = 0.875), and religion (χ² = 2.819, P = 0.420). Participants with chronic conditions demonstrated a higher acceptance rate compared to the general population.

Despite the positive perception observed and substantial vaccine acceptance rate among the study participants, more public health interventions are still needed to enhance vaccine acceptability in Nigeria.

Longitudinal mixed-methods research is necessary to understand the changing dynamics of pandemic perceptions, the adoption of health behaviours, and use of media during a public health emergency. During the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, we used a mixed-methods approach to survey young adults attending a large Canadian public university. Six online convenience survey samples were collected (Spring 2020, Summer 2020, Fall 2020, Spring 2021, Fall 2021, Spring 2022) (n = 4932) and 110 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Female gender was associated with higher perceptions of severity, susceptibility, and the adoption of new health behaviours. Perceptions of severity and anxiety/fear about contracting COVID-19 after reading/hearing a news report decreased overall over time, while perceptions of susceptibility increased through time overall. Social media was the most used form of media and was the form of media that participants judged to make them feel most anxious/fearful about contracting COVID-19. Those who felt anxious after hearing a COVID-19 news report were 8.43 times more likely to judge COVID-19 as severe and 2.07 times more likely to judge their own susceptibility as high. Interviews revealed perceptions of information overload, passive information intake, and a narrowed geographical focus over time. The decrease in judgements of COVID-19 severity with the accompanying increase in judgements of susceptibility over the first two years of the pandemic demonstrate the dynamics of changing pandemic attitudes. Health communication efforts targeting university students in future major health events need to consider these shifting dynamics and ensure that health information distributed via social media meets the needs of university students.

To assess the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and self-reported adherence to preventive measures in Switzerland during the COVID-19 pandemic.

4,299 participants from a digital cohort were followed between September 2020 and November 2021. Baseline equivalised disposable income and education were used as SES proxies. Adherence was assessed over time. We investigated the association between SES and adherence using multivariable mixed logistic regression, stratifying by age (below/above 65 years) and two periods (before/after June 2021, to account for changes in vaccine coverage and epidemiological situation).

Adherence was high across all SES strata before June 2021. After, participants with higher equivalised disposable income were less likely to adhere to preventive measures compared to participants in the first (low) quartile [second (Adj.OR, 95% CI) (0.56, 0.37-0.85), third (0.38, 0.23-0.64), fourth (0.60, 0.36-0.98)]. We observed similar results for education.

No differences by SES were found during the period with high SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates and stringent measures. Following the broad availability of vaccines, lower incidence, and eased measures, differences by SES started to emerge. Our study highlights the need for contextual interpretation when assessing SES impact on adherence to preventive measures.

Risk perception research, targeting the general public, necessitates the study of the multi-faceted aspects of perceived risk through a holistic approach. This study aimed to investigate the association between the two dimensions of risk perception of COVID-19, i.e., risk as a feeling and analysis, trust in the current government, political ideologies, and socio-demographic factors in South Korea. This study used a year-long repeated cross-sectional design, in which a national sample (n = 23,018) participated in 23 consecutive telephone surveys from February 2020 to February 2021. Most factors differed in the magnitude and direction of their relationships with the two dimensions of risk perception. However, trust in the current government, alone, delineated an association in the same direction for both dimensions, i.e., those with a lower level of trust exhibited higher levels of cognitive and affective risk perception. Although these results did not change significantly during the one-year observation period, they are related to the political interpretation of risk. This study revealed that affective and cognitive risk perceptions addressed different dimensions of risk perception. These findings could help governments and health authorities better understand the nature and mechanisms of public risk perception when implementing countermeasures and policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies.

Effective risk communication is essential for government and health authorities to effectively manage public health during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the factors that influence people's perceptions of crisis-related risk messages is critical to identify gaps and inequalities in population risk communication. Using a longitudinal survey of a representative adult sample, we examined risk communication about COVID-19 during April-June 2020 in Australia across sociodemographic groups especially the at-risk groups, accounting for and exploring the effects of risk attitudes and media engagement. Our findings showed that individuals who were younger, more left-wing, more risk-tolerant, and had a current or a history of mental disorders perceived risk communication of the Australian Government to be lower quality. On the other hand, greater consumption of information from televisions was found to be associated with more positive attitudes toward government risk communication. Our results also revealed the importance of effective and high-quality risk communication in gaining the public endorsement of various public health directions. We discuss the implications of results in terms of the development of effective public communications that lead to health-protective behaviors and effectively scaffold public understanding of risk.

Although the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has reached all over the world population, it has demonstrated a heterogeneous impact on different populations. The most vulnerable communities which coexist daily with the social inequalities like low access to hygiene and personal protection products, crowded residences, and higher levels of chronic diseases have a higher risk of contact and the spread of infection, beyond unfavorable clinical outcomes. The elevation of the risk of infection exposure can be related to gender due to the presence of a larger contingent of women in essential services, as well as frontline and cleaning professionals who regardless of gender have the greatest exposure to the virus. Such exposures can contribute to the development of fear of contaminating themselves or their family members associated also with the work stress, both of which are related to the emergence of mental disturbances in these populations. Furthermore, conditions of unsanitary living and low socioeconomic status, populations at war, pre-existing social barriers, and ethnicity have contributed to more impact of the pandemic both in the exposure to the virus and access to health services, COVID-19 management, and management of other pathologies. At the same time, factors such as the closing of non-essential services, the loss of jobs, and the increase in household spending aggravated the social vulnerabilities and impacted the family economy. Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic contributed still more to the impact on women's health since it propitiated a favorable environment for increasing domestic violence rates, through the segregation of women from social life, and increasing the time of the victims with their aggressors.

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically impacted people's travel behaviour and introduced uncertainty in the demand for public transport. To investigate user preferences for travel by London Underground during the pandemic, we conducted a stated choice experiment among its pre-pandemic users (N = 961). We analysed the collected data using multinomial and latent class logit models. Our discrete choice analysis provides two sets of results. First, we derive the crowding multiplier estimate of travel time valuation (i.e., the ratio of the value of travel time in uncrowded and crowded situations) for London underground users. The results indicate that travel time valuation of Underground users increases by 73% when it operates at technical capacity. Second, we estimate the sensitivity of the preference for the London Underground relative to the epidemic situation (confirmed new COVID-19 cases) and interventions (vaccination rates and mandatory face masks). The sensitivity analysis suggests that making face masks mandatory is a main driver for recovering the demand for the London underground. The latent class model reveals substantial preference heterogeneity. For instance, while the average effect of mandatory face masks is positive, the preferences of 30% of pre-pandemic users for travel by the Underground are negatively affected. The positive effect of mandatory face masks on the likelihood of taking the Underground is less pronounced among males with age below 40 years, and a monthly income below 10,000 GBP. The estimated preference sensitivities and crowding multipliers are relevant for supply-demand management in transit systems and the calibration of advanced epidemiological models.