IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i2p163-174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of COVID-19 Risk: How Did People Adapt to the Novel Risk?

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Sepucha

    (Health Decision Sciences Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Aaron Rudkin

    (Department of Political Science, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Ryan Baxter-King

    (Department of Political Science, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Annette L. Stanton

    (Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry/Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Neil Wenger

    (Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Sciences Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Lynn Vavreck

    (Departments of Political Science and Communication, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Arash Naeim

    (Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Sciences Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
    UCLA Center for SMART Health, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

Abstract

Background There is limited understanding of how risk perceptions changed as the US population gained experience with COVID-19. The objectives were to examine risk perceptions and determine the factors associated with risk perceptions and how these changed over the first 18 mo of the pandemic. Methods Seven cross-sectional online surveys were fielded between May 2020 and October 2021. The study included a population-weighted sample of 138,303 US adults drawn from a market research platform, with an average 68% cooperation rate. Respondents’ risk perception of developing COVID in the next 30 days was assessed at each time point. We examined relationships between 30-day risk perceptions and various factors (including sociodemographic features, health, COVID-19 experience, political affiliation, and psychological variables). Results COVID risk perceptions were stable across the 2020 surveys and showed a significant decrease in the 2021 surveys. Several factors, including older age, worse health, high COVID worry, in-person employment type, higher income, Democratic political party affiliation (the relatively more liberal party in the United States), low tolerance of uncertainty, and high anxiety were strongly associated with higher 30-d risk perceptions in 2020. One notable change occurred in 2021, in that younger adults (aged 18–29 y) had significantly higher 30-d risk perceptions than older adults did (aged 65 y and older) after vaccination. Initial differences in perception by political party attenuated over time. Higher 30-d risk perceptions were significantly associated with engaging in preventive behaviors. Limitations Cross-sectional samples, risk perception item focused on incidence not severity. Conclusions COVID risk perceptions decreased over time. Understanding the longitudinal pattern of risk perceptions and the factors associated with 30-d risk perceptions over time provides valuable insights to guide public health communication campaigns. Highlights The study assessed COVID-19 risk perceptions at 7 time points over 18 mo of the pandemic in large samples of US adults. Risk perceptions were fairly stable until the introduction of vaccines in early 2021, at which point they showed a marked reduction. Higher COVID-19 30-d risk perceptions were significantly associated with the preventive behaviors of masking, limiting social contact, avoiding restaurants, and not entertaining visitors at home.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Sepucha & Aaron Rudkin & Ryan Baxter-King & Annette L. Stanton & Neil Wenger & Lynn Vavreck & Arash Naeim, 2024. "Perceptions of COVID-19 Risk: How Did People Adapt to the Novel Risk?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(2), pages 163-174, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:163-174
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231221448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231221448
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231221448?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:163-174. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.