客观风险与感知风险的对比:预测具有全国代表性的美国样本中 COVID-19 的健康行为。

IF 3.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Rebecca R Thompson, Nickolas M Jones, Dana Rose Garfin, E Alison Holman, Roxane Cohen Silver
{"title":"客观风险与感知风险的对比:预测具有全国代表性的美国样本中 COVID-19 的健康行为。","authors":"Rebecca R Thompson, Nickolas M Jones, Dana Rose Garfin, E Alison Holman, Roxane Cohen Silver","doi":"10.1093/abm/kaad055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals confronting health threats may display an optimistic bias such that judgments of their risk for illness or death are unrealistically positive given their objective circumstances.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We explored optimistic bias for health risks using k-means clustering in the context of COVID-19. We identified risk profiles using subjective and objective indicators of severity and susceptibility risk for COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 3/18/2020-4/18/2020, a national probability sample of 6,514 U.S. residents reported both their subjective risk perceptions (e.g., perceived likelihood of illness or death) and objective risk indices (e.g., age, weight, pre-existing conditions) of COVID-19-related susceptibility and severity, alongside other pandemic-related experiences. Six months later, a subsample (N = 5,661) completed a follow-up survey with questions about their frequency of engagement in recommended health protective behaviors (social distancing, mask wearing, risk behaviors, vaccination intentions).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The k-means clustering procedure identified five risk profiles in the Wave 1 sample; two of these demonstrated aspects of optimistic bias, representing almost 44% of the sample. In OLS regression models predicting health protective behavior adoption at Wave 2, clusters representing individuals with high perceived severity risk were most likely to report engagement in social distancing, but many individuals who were objectively at high risk for illness and death did not report engaging in self-protective behaviors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Objective risk of disease severity only inconsistently predicted health protective behavior. Risk profiles may help identify groups that need more targeted interventions to increase their support for public health policy and health enhancing recommendations more broadly.</p>","PeriodicalId":7939,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Behavioral Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contrasting Objective and Perceived Risk: Predicting COVID-19 Health Behaviors in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample.\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca R Thompson, Nickolas M Jones, Dana Rose Garfin, E Alison Holman, Roxane Cohen Silver\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/abm/kaad055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals confronting health threats may display an optimistic bias such that judgments of their risk for illness or death are unrealistically positive given their objective circumstances.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We explored optimistic bias for health risks using k-means clustering in the context of COVID-19. We identified risk profiles using subjective and objective indicators of severity and susceptibility risk for COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 3/18/2020-4/18/2020, a national probability sample of 6,514 U.S. residents reported both their subjective risk perceptions (e.g., perceived likelihood of illness or death) and objective risk indices (e.g., age, weight, pre-existing conditions) of COVID-19-related susceptibility and severity, alongside other pandemic-related experiences. Six months later, a subsample (N = 5,661) completed a follow-up survey with questions about their frequency of engagement in recommended health protective behaviors (social distancing, mask wearing, risk behaviors, vaccination intentions).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The k-means clustering procedure identified five risk profiles in the Wave 1 sample; two of these demonstrated aspects of optimistic bias, representing almost 44% of the sample. In OLS regression models predicting health protective behavior adoption at Wave 2, clusters representing individuals with high perceived severity risk were most likely to report engagement in social distancing, but many individuals who were objectively at high risk for illness and death did not report engaging in self-protective behaviors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Objective risk of disease severity only inconsistently predicted health protective behavior. Risk profiles may help identify groups that need more targeted interventions to increase their support for public health policy and health enhancing recommendations more broadly.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaad055\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaad055","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:在 COVID-19 的背景下,我们使用 k-means 聚类对健康风险的乐观偏差进行了研究。我们利用 COVID-19 的严重性和易感性风险的主观和客观指标确定了风险概况:在 2020 年 3 月 18 日至 2020 年 4 月 18 日期间,6,514 名美国居民的全国概率样本报告了他们对 COVID-19 相关易感性和严重性的主观风险认知(如认为生病或死亡的可能性)和客观风险指数(如年龄、体重、既往病史),以及其他与大流行病相关的经历。六个月后,一个子样本(N = 5,661)完成了一项后续调查,调查内容包括他们参与建议的健康保护行为(拉开社交距离、戴口罩、风险行为、疫苗接种意向)的频率:k-means 聚类程序在第 1 波样本中发现了五种风险特征;其中两种表现出乐观偏差,占样本的近 44%。在预测第二波采取健康保护行为的 OLS 回归模型中,代表高感知严重性风险的个人群组最有可能报告参与社会疏远行为,但许多客观存在高疾病和死亡风险的个人并未报告参与自我保护行为:客观疾病严重性风险对健康保护行为的预测并不一致。风险概况可能有助于确定哪些群体需要更有针对性的干预,以提高他们对公共卫生政策和更广泛的增进健康建议的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contrasting Objective and Perceived Risk: Predicting COVID-19 Health Behaviors in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample.

Background: Individuals confronting health threats may display an optimistic bias such that judgments of their risk for illness or death are unrealistically positive given their objective circumstances.

Purpose: We explored optimistic bias for health risks using k-means clustering in the context of COVID-19. We identified risk profiles using subjective and objective indicators of severity and susceptibility risk for COVID-19.

Methods: Between 3/18/2020-4/18/2020, a national probability sample of 6,514 U.S. residents reported both their subjective risk perceptions (e.g., perceived likelihood of illness or death) and objective risk indices (e.g., age, weight, pre-existing conditions) of COVID-19-related susceptibility and severity, alongside other pandemic-related experiences. Six months later, a subsample (N = 5,661) completed a follow-up survey with questions about their frequency of engagement in recommended health protective behaviors (social distancing, mask wearing, risk behaviors, vaccination intentions).

Results: The k-means clustering procedure identified five risk profiles in the Wave 1 sample; two of these demonstrated aspects of optimistic bias, representing almost 44% of the sample. In OLS regression models predicting health protective behavior adoption at Wave 2, clusters representing individuals with high perceived severity risk were most likely to report engagement in social distancing, but many individuals who were objectively at high risk for illness and death did not report engaging in self-protective behaviors.

Conclusions: Objective risk of disease severity only inconsistently predicted health protective behavior. Risk profiles may help identify groups that need more targeted interventions to increase their support for public health policy and health enhancing recommendations more broadly.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Annals of Behavioral Medicine PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Annals of Behavioral Medicine aims to foster the exchange of knowledge derived from the disciplines involved in the field of behavioral medicine, and the integration of biological, psychosocial, and behavioral factors and principles as they relate to such areas as health promotion, disease prevention, risk factor modification, disease progression, adjustment and adaptation to physical disorders, and rehabilitation. To achieve these goals, much of the journal is devoted to the publication of original empirical articles including reports of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, or other basic and clinical investigations. Integrative reviews of the evidence for the application of behavioral interventions in health care will also be provided. .
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信