Background Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a barrier to achieving herd immunity, and thus, a prominent public health concern. This study aimed to identify the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy based on the World Health Organization’s ‘3Cs’ model (i.e., confidence, complacency, and convenience) in the United States (U.S.) and Canada. Methods Data from 7678 adults ages 18 or older were collected from the four most populous U.S. States, specifically New York, California, Florida, and Texas, and from English-speaking Canada at three timepoints, in May and July 2020, and March 2021 using a web-based survey (www.covid19-database.com). Sociodemographic information was collected, and comprehensive psychological assessments were administered. Univariate analyses were performed to identify the individual determinants of vaccine hesitancy, which were categorized as: 1) vaccine confidence, 2) vaccine complacency, 3) sociodemographic, and 4) other psychological factors. A series of models were computed using these categorizations. Results Mistrust of vaccine benefit (β(SE) = 0.67(0.01), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.26) and lower perceived seriousness of COVID-19 (β(SE) = 0.68(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.12) were the principal determinants of vaccine hesitancy. Right-wing political affiliation (β(SE) = 0.32(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03), higher risk propensity (β(SE) = 0.24(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03), and less negative mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (β(SE) = 0.20(0.01), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03) were the main sociodemographic and psychological determinants. Other sociodemographic determinants included younger age, women, race, and employment status. Lack of vaccine confidence and complacency explained 38% and 21% of the variance in vaccine hesitancy, respectively; whereas, sociodemographic and psychological determinants explained 13% and 11% of the variance in vaccine hesitancy, respectively. Discussion Targeted and tailored public health interventions that enhance the public’s confidence in vaccines and emphasize the risk and seriousness of COVID-19 may address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Efforts directed toward specific marginalized and underserved groups may be required to promote vaccine confidence.

Objectives: The rapid pace, high volume, and limited quality of mental health evidence being generated during COVID-19 poses a barrier to effective decision-making. The objective of the present report is to compare mental health outcomes assessed during COVID-19 to outcomes prior to COVID-19 in the general population and other population groups. Design: Living systematic review. Data Sources: MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator). The initial search was conducted on April 13, 2020 with ongoing weekly updates. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: For this report, we included studies that compared general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms, assessed January 1, 2020 or later, to the same outcomes collected between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. We required ≥ 90% of participants pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 to be the same or the use of statistical methods to address missing data. For population groups with continuous outcomes for at least three studies in an outcome domain, we conducted restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects meta-analyses. Results: As of March 22, 2021, we had identified 36 unique eligible studies with data from 33 cohorts. All reported COVID-19 outcomes between March and June 2020, and 3 studies also reported outcomes between September and November 2020. Estimates of changes in general mental health were close to zero in the general population (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16, I2 = 94.6%; 4 studies, N = 19,707) and among older adults (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16, I2 = 90.4%; 4 studies, N = 5,520) and university students (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.30, I2 = 92.0%; 3 studies, N = 3,372). Changes in anxiety symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant in university students (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.36, I2 = 95.4%; 5 studies, N = 1,537); women or females (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39, I2 = 92.3%; 3 studies, N = 2,778); and men or males (SMD = 0.07, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.15; I2 = 0.01%; 3 studies, N = 1,250); anxiety symptoms increased, however, among people with pre-existing medical conditions (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, I2 = 91.0%; 3 studies, N = 2,053). Changes in depression symptoms were close to zero or small and not statistically significant among university students (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.45, I2 = 91.8%; 5 studies, N = 1,537); people with pre-existing medical conditions (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.17, I2 = 14.9%; 3 studies, N = 2,006); women or females (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.55, I2 = 91.2%; 3 studies, N = 2,843); and men or males (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.22; I2 = 92.3%; 4 studies, N = 3,661). In 3 studies with data from both March to June 2020 and September to November 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-COVID-19 at both time points or there were increases at the first assessment that had largely dissipated by the second assessment. Conclusions: Evidence does not suggest a widespread negative effect on mental health symptoms in COVID-19, although it is possible that gaps in data have not allowed identification of changes in some vulnerable groups. Continued updating is needed as evidence accrues.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a number of negative health related consequences, including impacts on mental health. More than 22% of Canadians reported that they had felt depressed in the last week, in response to a December 2020 national survey. Given the need to physically distance during the pandemic, and the increase in demand for mental health services, digital interventions that support mental health and wellness may be beneficial. Objective The purpose of this research was to identify digital interventions that could be used to support the mental health of the Canadian general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objectives were to identify (1) the populations these interventions were developed for, inclusive of exploring areas of equity such as socioeconomic status, sex/gender, race/ethnicity and culture, and relevance to Indigenous peoples and communities; (2) the effect of the interventions; and (3) any barriers or facilitators to the use of the intervention. Methods This study was completed using a Cochrane Rapid Review methodology. A search of Embase, PsycInfo, Medline, and Web of Science, along with Google, Million Short, and popular mobile app libraries, was conducted. Two screeners were involved in applying inclusion criteria using Covidence software. Academic articles and mobile apps identified were screened using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields resource, the American Psychiatric Association App Evaluation Framework, and the Mental Health Commission of Canada’s guidance on app assessment and selection. Results A total of 31 mobile apps and 114 web-based resources (eg, telemedicine, virtual peer support groups, discussion forums, etc) that could be used to support the mental health of the Canadian population during the pandemic were identified. These resources have been listed on a publicly available website along with search tags that may help an individual make a suitable selection. Variability exists in the populations that the interventions were developed for, and little assessment has been done with regard to areas of equity. The effect of the interventions was not reported for all those identified in this synthesis; however, for those that did report the effect, it was shown that they were effective in the context that they were used. A number of barriers and facilitators to using these interventions were identified, such as access, cost, and connectivity. Conclusions A number of digital interventions that could support population mental health in Canada during the global COVID-19 pandemic were identified, indicating that individuals have several options to choose from. These interventions vary in their purpose, approach, design, cost, and targeted user group. While some research and digital interventions addressed equity-related considerations, more research and focused attention should be given to this area.

No abstract

Populations in Canada represent a diverse range of cultures with different beliefs and norms regarding alcohol use and related problems. While there is very little published research on the cultural aspects of alcohol and other substance uses in Canada, in spite of the cultural diversity of the country, there are important indications that alcohol is a serious problem in many ethnic communities. In order to arrive at a more complete understanding of the issues related to providing culturally sensitive approaches that would meet the alcohol-related health promotion needs of diverse communities, focus group discussions were conducted with the key informants and community members from seven Ontario communities: the Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Tamil, Punjabi, Serbian and Somali. The results revealed that the types and sizes of alcoholic beverages consumed in each community, drinking levels that are considered 'normal' or 'excessive', as well as the perception of alcohol-related problems are largely shaped by their cultural norms and beliefs, which often differ from those of the dominant culture. Health messages that reflect the dominant culture are often not relevant to people from different cultural backgrounds. Socioeconomic disadvantages and barriers to service utilization heighten their vulnerability to alcohol problems. These findings have important implications for prevention and service provision, particularly to ethnic communities that may be unlikely to access services through more standard channels.

The built environment is a physical determinant of health essential to the planning and development of a more equitable society. Communities face growing challenges due to environmental stressors such as climate change, with vulnerable communities experiencing a disproportionate burden of adverse health outcomes. The interdependencies between urban planning and public health outcomes are inextricable, with respect to improving access to healthier built environments for vulnerable and marginalized groups. Widespread implementation of nature-based solutions, such as green infrastructure, provides a multi-functional strategy to support sustainable development, increase climate resilience, enhance ecological connectivity, and create healthier communities. A Health Equity Impact Assessment presents the findings of a participatory research study utilizing key informant interviews of public health unit professionals (eight) and a survey of green infrastructure volunteers and workers (36) on the impact of green infrastructure on individual and community mental and physical well-being, service use, and perceived unmet needs, using Ontario, Canada as a case study. Study findings indicate that where green infrastructure is both productive and publicly accessible, the benefits were significant for vulnerable populations. These benefits include increased social connectivity, skills development, and food security. Green infrastructure could be a viable strategy to address environmental stressors, improve health equity, and support localization of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Women and gender-diverse individuals have faced disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. There have been reports of greater negative mental health changes compared to men based on cross-sectional research that has not accounted for pre-COVID-19 differences. We compared mental health changes from pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 by sex or gender. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator) were searched to August 30, 2021. Eligible studies included mental health symptom change data by sex or gender. 12 studies (10 unique cohorts) were included, all of which reported dichotomized sex or gender data. 9 cohorts reported results from March to June 2020, and 2 of these also reported on September or November to December 2020. One cohort included data pre-November 2020 data but did not provide dates. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12, 95% CI -0.09–0.33; 4 studies, 4,475 participants; I2 = 69.0%) and stress (SMD = − 0.10, 95% CI -0.21–0.01; 4 studies, 1,533 participants; I2 = 0.0%), but anxiety (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07–0.22; 4 studies, 4,344 participants; I2 = 3.0%) and general mental health (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.12–0.18; 3 studies, 15,692 participants; I2 = 0.0%) worsened more among females/women than males/men. There were no significant differences in changes in proportions above cut-offs: anxiety (difference = − 0.05, 95% CI − 0.20–0.11; 1 study, 217 participants), depression (difference = 0.12, 95% CI -0.03–0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference = − 0.03, 95% CI − 0.09–0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2 = 94.0%), stress (difference = 0.04, 95% CI − 0.10–0.17; 1 study, 217 participants). Mental health outcomes did not differ or were worse by small amounts among women than men during early COVID-19.

No abstract