ArticlePeerJ2023
Perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 in Tennessee, USA: a retrospective study.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite high incidence and mortality risks associated with COVID-19 during the pandemic, stay-at-home orders and vaccination recommendations were met with varying levels of acceptance in Tennessee. Understanding perceptions of individuals regarding the health and economic impacts of COVID-19 is necessary to address public concerns while ensuring appropriate public health response. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (a) investigate differences in opinions among residents of Tennessee regarding the impacts of COVID-19; and (b) identify socioeconomic and demographic predictors/determinants of these opinions. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using survey data collected in nine waves during 2020. Distributions of survey-weighted sociodemographic characteristics and respondent perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 were computed. Weighted logistic models were used to investigate predictors of a number of perceptions: whether the health or economic impact was greater, concern for respondent's health, concern for family's health, and willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccine. Results: The study included a total of 9,754 survey respondents. Approximately equal percentages considered COVID-19 to have a greater economic (48.4%) versus health impact (51.6%). Just 40.1% of the respondents reported that they would definitely accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Age group, race, educational attainment, and household composition were significant ( Conclusion: These findings improve our understanding of the drivers of health behaviors, including vaccine hesitancy, and are useful for guiding public health outreach/education programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.