Find this paper

Abstract

Compartmental models of infectious disease transmission make assumptions about human behaviors. Specifically, they parameterize interactions across population groups, assumed to have distinct epidemiologically-relevant behavioral patterns, primarily through contact matrices stratified by demographic variables such as age, gender, or socioeconomic status. Although such demographic characteristics are readily measurable, they may inadequately capture the social and psychological forces that govern protective behaviors. Drawing on 20 waves of a national survey conducted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, we show that institutional trust -- particularly trust in public health agencies, physicians, and hospitals -- is a dominant predictor of protective behavior adoption. For mask wearing during periods of strongest pandemic activity, for example, institutional trust explains more behavioral variance across population groups than age, income, education, and partisan affiliation combined. In unadjusted analyses, the difference in protective behavior adoption between individuals with the highest and lowest trust in the CDC was four- to six-fold larger than the corresponding differences by age, income, or educational attainment, and exceeded the difference between Democratic and Republican respondents. This association was institutionally specific (e.g., the relationship attenuates for trust in banks), and behaviorally specific (e.g., trust in the CDC is associated with protective behaviors but not visiting a doctor). The latter suggests that trust modifies voluntary compliance with public health recommendations rather than access to or use of healthcare. We conclude that compartmental models of disease transmission would be substantially improved by incorporating institutional trust as a stratifying variable. We additionally offer a trust-integrated mathematical modeling framework and recommendations for the data infrastructure needed for its implementation.

Posts about this paper

No posts about this paper yet. Mention it with @ in a post to start the conversation.