Hurt on Both Sides: Political Differences in Health and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

IF 6.3 1区医学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Health and Social Behavior Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-21 DOI:10.1177/00221465231200500

Max E Coleman, Matthew A Andersson

{"title":"Hurt on Both Sides: Political Differences in Health and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic.","authors":"Max E Coleman, Matthew A Andersson","doi":"10.1177/00221465231200500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Republicans and conservatives report better self-rated health and well-being compared to Democrats and liberals, yet they are more likely to reside in geographic areas with heavy COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. This harmed health on \"both sides\" of political divides, occurring in a time of rapid sociopolitical upheaval, warrants the revisiting of psychosocial mechanisms linked to political health differences. Drawing on national Gallup data (early 2021), we find that predicted differences in health or well-being vary substantially by ideology, party, voting behavior, and policy beliefs, with model fit depending on how politics are measured. Differences in self-rated health, psychological distress, happiness, trouble sleeping, and delayed health care tend to reveal worse outcomes for Democrats or liberals. Such differences often are reduced to insignificance by some combination of mastery, meritocratic beliefs, perceived social support, and COVID-19-related exposures and attitudes. Policy beliefs predict health differences most robustly across outcomes and mechanism adjustments.</p>","PeriodicalId":51349,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health and Social Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"94-109"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health and Social Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00221465231200500","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Republicans and conservatives report better self-rated health and well-being compared to Democrats and liberals, yet they are more likely to reside in geographic areas with heavy COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. This harmed health on "both sides" of political divides, occurring in a time of rapid sociopolitical upheaval, warrants the revisiting of psychosocial mechanisms linked to political health differences. Drawing on national Gallup data (early 2021), we find that predicted differences in health or well-being vary substantially by ideology, party, voting behavior, and policy beliefs, with model fit depending on how politics are measured. Differences in self-rated health, psychological distress, happiness, trouble sleeping, and delayed health care tend to reveal worse outcomes for Democrats or liberals. Such differences often are reduced to insignificance by some combination of mastery, meritocratic beliefs, perceived social support, and COVID-19-related exposures and attitudes. Policy beliefs predict health differences most robustly across outcomes and mechanism adjustments.

查看原文本刊更多论文

双方的伤害：新冠肺炎大流行期间健康和福祉方面的政治差异。

与民主党和自由派相比，共和党和保守派的自我评价健康和福祉更好，但他们更有可能居住在新冠肺炎发病率和死亡率较高的地理区域。这损害了政治分歧“双方”的健康，发生在社会政治快速动荡的时期，需要重新审视与政治健康差异相关的心理社会机制。根据盖洛普的全国数据（2021年初），我们发现，预测的健康或幸福感差异因意识形态、政党、投票行为和政策信仰而异，模型的适用性取决于如何衡量政治。自我评估的健康状况、心理困扰、幸福感、睡眠困难和医疗保健延迟方面的差异往往会揭示民主党或自由派更糟糕的结果。这种差异往往由于掌握、精英信仰、感知到的社会支持以及与新冠肺炎相关的接触和态度的某种结合而变得微不足道。政策信念最有力地预测了结果和机制调整之间的健康差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Health and Social Behavior Multiple-

CiteScore

6.50

自引率

4.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Journal of Health and Social Behavior is a medical sociology journal that publishes empirical and theoretical articles that apply sociological concepts and methods to the understanding of health and illness and the organization of medicine and health care. Its editorial policy favors manuscripts that are grounded in important theoretical issues in medical sociology or the sociology of mental health and that advance theoretical understanding of the processes by which social factors and human health are inter-related.