Background Inequities in COVID-19 vaccine accessibility and reliable COVID-related information disproportionately affected marginalized racial and ethnic communities in the U.S. The Get Out the Vaccine (GOTVax) program, an innovative statewide government-funded COVID-19 vaccine canvassing program in California, aimed to reduce structural barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in high-risk communities with low vaccination rates. GOTVax consisted of a community-academic-government partnership with 34 local trusted community-based organizations’ (CBOs) to conduct COVID-19 vaccine outreach, education, and vaccine registration. The purpose of this qualitative evaluation study was to explore the barriers and facilitators of using local CBOs to deploy a geographically, racially, and ethnically diverse state-wide COVID-19 vaccine outreach program. Methods Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with participating GOTVax CBO leaders from November 2021 to January 2022. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Thirty-one of 34 CBOs participated (91% response rate). Identified themes encompassed both facilitators and barriers to program participation. Key facilitators included leveraging trust through recognized entities; promoting empathetic, tailored outreach; and flexibility of milestone-based CBO funding contracts for rapid program implementation. Barriers included navigating community sociopolitical, geographic, and cultural factors; managing canvassers’ safety; desiring metrics for self-evaluation of outreach success; mitigating canvassing technology challenges; and concerns of program infrastructure initially limiting outreach. CBOs problem-solved barriers with academic and government partners. Conclusions Between May and December 2021, the GOTVax program reached over 2 million California residents and registered over 60,000 residents for COVID-19 vaccination. Public health campaigns may improve benefits from leveraging the expertise of community-trusted CBOs and universities by providing flexible infrastructure and funding, allowing CBOs to seamlessly tailor outreach most applicable to local minoritized communities.

Background In recent years, the Web has become a source of medical information for patients, even though the information available online may be incorrect or qualitatively inadequate. Younger generations, immersed in a digital environment since a very tender age, are more likely to get informed online. This study aims to understand the relevance of online information for prospective orthodontic patients and to investigate the effects of digital research on patients’ decision-making process, and it also aims to investigate potential generational differences between digital natives and digital immigrants. Materials and methods An anonymous questionnaire was developed to investigate patients’ orthodontic-themed Web searches as well as the effects digital material had on their decision-making process. Before submitting the newly designed survey to patients, it was validated in a pilot study. Univariate analysis was applied to analyze the relationship between the demographic characteristics of respondents and their answers on the use of digital research for the decision-making process. Results 64.6% of the study population searched the Web for orthodontic information prior to their visit. Google was the most used platform regardless of patients’ age. The perceived reliability of online sources varied significantly with age. Men displayed more trusting behavior towards their doctor than women. Prospective patients’ satisfaction with affected patients’ decision-making processes, and the perceived reliability of online sources of information had repercussions on the doctor-patient relationship. Conclusions Orthodontists should be aware that the majority of patients use the Internet as a source for orthodontic information, and that patients who are digital immigrants are more prone to trust the information found online. Patients who perceive the information found on the Web as either useful or reliable don’t easily discard it, even if it is inconsistent with the orthodontist’s opinion.

As a zoonotic disease with unprecedented global impacts, COVID-19 may influence how people prioritize issues related to wildlife conservation. Using a nationally representative sample of US residents, we investigated: (1) how COVID-19 affected the relative importance of conservation issues among adults with different political ideologies, and (2) how the pandemic affected political polarization of conservation issues during the 2020 general election in the United States. Conservation issues such as endangered species and controlling zoonotic disease ranked low in importance among the 14 policy issues considered, even lower than environmental issues such as climate change and environmental protection; however, the importance of all conservation issues increased as a result of COVID-19. Political polarization surrounding the perceived importance of conservation issues also increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Democrats reporting larger increases in importance than Republicans. Polarization was driven by the most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats. But this polarization was less extreme than it was for other issues such as climate change and healthcare. Findings highlight the need for communicating links between zoonotic disease and human interactions with wildlife and the environment. Acting quickly may be critical in areas where conservation issues are primed to succumb to political polarization.

Restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered daily lives and affected human health and well-being. Outdoor and nature-based activities could potentially mitigate some of these negative impacts. To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor recreation and subjective well-being, we combined two samples of U.S. adults collected from April 30th - June 15th, 2020 and from August 7th - August 26th, 2020 (total n = 2178) using Qualtrics XM. During the pandemic, participation in outdoor activities declined by 35%, participation in nature-based activities declined by 33%, and subjective well-being declined by 24%. Participation in outdoor activities and nature activities prior to the pandemic and during the pandemic predicted smaller declines in subjective well-being. Results highlight the importance of outdoor recreation for building resilience to changes in subjective well-being before and during global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 is reshaping human interactions with the natural environment, potentially generating profound consequences for health and well-being. To assess the effects of COVID-19 on the outdoor recreation participation and subjective well-being of adolescents, as well as how participation in outdoor activities may mitigate declines in subjective well-being, we used a Qualtrics XM panel to conduct a nationally representative survey of youth ages 10–18 across the United States (n = 624) between 30 April and 15 June 2020. Survey questions focused on frequency of participation in outdoor activities before and during the pandemic, as well as changes in subjective well-being. Paired t-tests revealed decreases in both outdoor recreation participation (64% reported declines) and subjective well-being (52% reported declines). A regression model examining correlates of changes in subjective well-being (R2 = 0.42) revealed strong associations with changes in outdoor play (B = 0.44, p < 0.001) and nature-based (B = 0.21, p = 0.016) activities. Adolescents’ from all backgrounds who participated in these activities during the pandemic reported smaller declines in subjective well-being. Results highlight the critical role that time outdoors and time in nature play in bolstering adolescents’ resilience to stressors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and underscore the need to facilitate outdoor recreation opportunities for youth during times of crisis.

Growing evidence suggests that connection to nature may be linked to mental health and well-being. Behavioral changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic could negatively affect adolescents' connection to nature, subsequently impacting health and well-being. We explored the relationship between connection to nature and well-being before and during the pandemic through a nationally representative survey of adolescents across the United States (n = 624) between April and June 2020. Survey items focused on connection to nature, mental well-being, and participation in outdoor activities before and during the pandemic. Paired-sample t-tests revealed declines in connection to nature, mental well-being, and participation in outdoor activities during the pandemic. Multiple linear regression analyses examining connection to nature's mediating role between outdoor activity participation and mental well-being indicated that connection to nature fueled higher levels of mental well-being at both time intervals. Z scores comparing connection to nature's mediating role between outdoor activity participation and mental well-being between time intervals indicate that during the pandemic, the direct effect of outdoor activities on mental well-being increased, generating a greater impact than before the pandemic. This study illustrates how the health and well-being benefits associated with adolescents' outdoor activities are reinforced when those activities also foster a stronger connection to nature.

The efficacy of science communication can be influenced by the cultural values and cognitions of target audiences, yet message framing rarely accounts for these cognitive factors. To explore the effects of message framing tailored to specific audiences, we investigated relationships between one form of cultural cognition—political ideology—and perceptions about the zoonotic origins of the COVID-19 pandemic using a nationally representative Qualtrics XM panel ( n = 1,554) during August 2020. First, we examined differences in attitudes towards science (in general) and COVID-19 (specifically) based on political ideology. We found that, compared to conservatives and moderates, liberals trusted science more, were less skeptical of science, perceived greater risk from COVID-19, were more likely to believe in a wildlife origin of COVID-19, and were more likely to support restrictions on wildlife trade. Second, we examined the influence of cultural framing on the perceived validity of science related to COVID-19. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 1) a technocratic framing that highlighted feats of human ingenuity to overcome zoonoses; 2) a regulatory framing that highlighted regulations and expansions of protected areas for wildlife as a means to prevent zoonoses, and 3) a control article about traffic lights with no cultural framing. After reading the initial framing article, all three groups read the same fictional, yet factually accurate, ‘Nature Science study’ generated by the authors. An OLS regression model revealed a significant interaction between the technocratic framing and political ideology. Relative to the control group, the technocratic framing slightly increased perceived validity of the Nature Science study for conservatives, significantly lowered perceived validity for liberals, and had no impact on moderates. We did not detect any significant interaction between framing and political ideology for the regulatory framing. Findings of this study highlight the need to account for cultural cognitions when communicating about COVID-19 and other zoonotic diseases. Communication strategies carefully designed to resonate with ideologically diverse audiences may ultimately lead to bipartisan support for actions required to promote “One Health” approaches that reduce the impacts of zoonoses on human and environmental health.