Search

Introduction: Mental health problems increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The knowledge that one is less at risk after being vaccinated may alleviate distress, but this hypothesis remains unexplored. This study tests whether psychological distress declined in those vaccinated against COVID-19 in the U.S. and whether changes in anticipatory fears mediated any association., Methods: A nationally representative cohort of U.S. adults (N=8,090) in the Understanding America Study were interviewed regularly from March 2020 to June 2021 (28 waves). Difference-in-differences regression tested whether vaccination reduced distress (Patient Health Questionnaire 4 scores), with mediation analysis used to identify potential mechanisms, including perceived risks of infection, hospitalization, and death., Results: Vaccination was associated with a 0.04-SD decline in distress (95% CI= -0.07, -0.02). Vaccination was associated with a 7.77-percentage point reduction in perceived risk of infection (95% CI= -8.62, -6.92), a 6.91-point reduction in perceived risk of hospitalization (95% CI= -7.72, -6.10), and a 4.68-point reduction in perceived risk of death (95% CI= -5.32, -4.04). Including risk perceptions decreased the vaccination-distress association by 25%. Event study models suggest that vaccinated and never vaccinated respondents followed similar Patient Health Questionnaire 4 trends before vaccination, diverging significantly after vaccination. Analyses were robust to individual and wave fixed effects and time-varying controls. The effect of vaccination on distress varied by race/ethnicity, with the largest declines observed among American Indian and Alaska Native individuals (β= -0.20, p<0.05, 95% CI= -0.36, -0.03)., Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination was associated with declines in distress and perceived risks of infection, hospitalization, and death. Vaccination campaigns could promote these additional benefits of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine., (Copyright © 2021 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to examine mental health status by gender identity among undergraduate and graduate students., Methods: Data came from the 2015-2017 Healthy Minds Study, a mobile survey of randomly selected students (N=65,213 at 71 U.S. campuses, including 1,237 gender minority [GM] students); data were analyzed in 2018. Outcomes were symptoms of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-injury, and suicidality based on widely used, clinically validated screening instruments. Bivariable and multivariable analyses explored differences between GM and cisgender (non-GM) students as well as by assigned sex at birth., Results: Across mental health measures, a significantly higher prevalence of symptoms was observed in GM students than cisgender students. Compared with 45% of cisgender students, 78% of GM students met the criteria for 1 or more of the aforementioned mental health outcomes. GM status was associated with 4.3 times higher odds of having at least 1 mental health problem (95% CI=3.61, 5.12)., Conclusions: Findings from this largest campus-based study of its kind using representative data with both gender identity and mental health measures underscore the importance of recognizing and addressing GM mental health burdens, such as by screening for mental health and providing gender-affirming services. There is broad urgency to identify protective factors and reduce mental health inequities for this vulnerable population., (Copyright © 2019 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Sexually transmitted diseases continue to increase in the U.S. There is a growing need for financially viable models to ensure the longevity of safety-net sexually transmitted disease clinics, which provide testing and treatment to high-risk populations. This micro-costing analysis estimated the number of visits required to balance cost and revenue of a sexually transmitted disease clinic in a Medicaid expansion state., Methods: In 2017, actual and projected cost and revenues were estimated from the Rhode Island sexually transmitted disease clinic in 2015. Projected revenues for a hypothetical clinic offering a standard set of sexually transmitted disease services were based on Medicaid; private ("commercial") insurance; and institutional ("list price") reimbursement rates. The number of visits needed to cover clinic costs at each rate was assessed., Results: Total operating cost for 2,153 clinic visits was estimated at $255,769, or $119 per visit. Laboratory testing and salaries each accounted for 44% of operating costs, medications for treatment 7%, supplies 5%, and 28% of visits used insurance. For a standard clinic offering a basic set of sexually transmitted disease services to break even, a projected 73% of visits need to be covered at the Medicaid rate, 38% at private rate, or 11% at institutional rate., Conclusions: Sexually transmitted disease clinics may be financially viable when a majority of visits are billed at a Medicaid rate; however, mixed private/public models may be needed if not all visits are billed. In this manner, sexually transmitted disease clinics can be solvent even if not all visits are billed to insurance, thus ensuring access to uninsured or underinsured patients., (Copyright © 2018 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)