The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is causing enormous morbidity and mortality across the US and is disproportionately affecting racial/ethnic minority populations and elderly persons. High acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines will be instrumental to ending the pandemic.Four cross-sectional internet surveys [1][2][3][4] (3 using convenience samples 1,3,4 ) from April 2 and May 1,3,4 2020 found that 58% to 69% of adults intended to get vaccinated against COVID-19, with higher percentages reported in April 2 than in May. 1,3,4 These studies did not track the same individuals over time, making it difficult to assess whether intent to get vaccinated has truly declined.We analyzed biweekly survey data from a nationally representative longitudinal study to describe changes over time in the public's likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine and across demographic subgroups.Methods | The Understanding America Study (UAS) is a probability-based internet panel survey of approximately 9000

This nationally representative survey found that less than one-half of US parents are likely to have their child receive COVID-19 vaccines when they are available. What's Known on This Subject:Very little is known about parental hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccines for children. What This Study Adds:This nationally representative survey found that less than one-half of US parents are likely to have their child receive the COVID-19 vaccine when it is available.

In contrast to the believed similarity in their health outcomes, workers in different Western countries report very different rates of work disability. Using new data from the United States and the Netherlands, we offer a partial resolution to this paradox. We find that observed differences in reported work disability largely stem from the fact that Dutch respondents have a lower threshold in reporting whether they have a work disability than American respondents. For those who do not suffer from pain, work disability is similar in both countries once thresholds are the same. For respondents with pain, however, a significant difference remains. (JEL J14, J28)

Use of internet panels to collect survey data is increasing because it is cost-effective, enables access to large and diverse samples quickly, takes less time than traditional methods to obtain back for analysis, and the standardization of data collection process makes studies easy to replicate. A variety of probability-based panels have been created including Telepanel/CentERpanel, Knowledge Networks (now GFK KnowledgePanel®), the American Life Panel, the LISS Panel, and the Understanding American Study panel. Despite the advantage of having a known denominator (sampling frame), the probability-based internet panels often have low recruitment participation rates and some have argued that there is little practical difference between opting out of a probability sample and opting into a non-probability (convenience) internet panel. This paper provides an overview of both probability-based and convenience panels, discussing potential benefits and cautions for each method, and summarizing approaches used to weight panel respondents to better represent the underlying population. Challenges in using internet panel data such as false answers, careless responses, giving the same answer repeatedly, getting multiple surveys from the same respondent, and panelists being members of multiple panels are discussed. There is more to be learned about internet panels generally and web-based data collection along with opportunities to evaluate data collected using mobile devices and social media platforms.

No abstract

Each week, the Dutch Postcode Lottery (PCL) randomly selects a postal code, and distributes cash and a new BMW to lottery participants in that code. We study the effects of these shocks on lottery winners and their neighbors. Consistent with the life-cycle hypothesis, the effects on winners' consumption are largely confined to cars and other durables. Consistent with the theory of in-kind transfers, the vast majority of BMW winners liquidate their BMWs. We do, however, detect substantial social effects of lottery winnings: PCL nonparticipants who live next door to winners have significantly higher levels of car consumption than other nonparticipants. JEL: D14, D91, H23, H27

Objectives. To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental distress in US adults. Methods. Participants were 5065 adults from the Understanding America Study, a probability-based Internet panel representative of the US adult population. The main exposure was survey completion date (March 10–16, 2020). The outcome was mental distress measured via the 4-item version of the Patient Health Questionnaire. Results. Among states with 50 or more COVID-19 cases as of March 10, each additional day was significantly associated with an 11% increase in the odds of moving up a category of distress (odds ratio = 1.11; 95% confidence interval = 1.01, 1.21; P = .02). Perceptions about the likelihood of getting infected, death from the virus, and steps taken to avoid infecting others were associated with increased mental distress in the model that included all states. Individuals with higher consumption of alcohol or cannabis or with history of depressive symptoms were at significantly higher risk for mental distress. Conclusions. These data suggest that as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, mental distress may continue to increase and should be regularly monitored. Specific populations are at high risk for mental distress, particularly those with preexisting depressive symptoms. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 17, 2020: e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305857 )

No abstract