Sarah E. Gollust's research while affiliated with University of Minnesota Duluth and other places

... 40 This harassment, consistent with the hostility that has hit science and related fields during the pandemic, requires broader protections and support for PHWs, whether it be legal, technological, security, or mental health. 41,42 An in-progress review of the COVID-19 response has also indicated the need for increased availability of risk-communication training to better equip PHWs with the tools necessary to communicate with the public during a public health emergency. 6 ...

... (Bassett et al., 2020;Couch et al., 2020;Gonzalez et al., 2020;Kantamneni, 2020;Lopez III et al., 2021;Bertoldo et al., 2022) Similar to studies linking positive health outcomes with safety net programs during the Great Recession, (Stuckler et al., 2009) new research finds that economic interventions during COVID-19 helped to mitigate financial hardships and psychological stress. (Saloner et al., 2022;Donnelly and Farina, 2021;Hamad and Galea, 2022;Raifman et al., 2021) The US healthcare sector's rapid scaling up of telehealth (Connolly et al., 2021;Joshi and Lewiss, 2020;Patel et al., 2021;Cantor et al., 2021) was another crucial, COVID-19 response. Although telehealth has long existed, it garnered limited interest from US patients, providers and payers (Bashshur et al., 2020;Clapp et al., 2020) until pandemic lockdowns, medical office closures, and widespread fear of infection made telehealth an essential tool for healthcare delivery. ...

... For instance, the level of trust in government [8,11], (de)centralization of state authority [9,12], protection of democratic principles [13,14], degree of political partisanship [14,15], subnational politics [16], and activation of intra-and intercity organizational networks [17] reportedly influenced COVID-19 governmental response, and by extension disease transmission, within jurisdictions. However, a consolidated, interdisciplinary framework taking a holistic view of upstream determinants of the public health response to COVID-19 has been a key gap. ...

... 30,31 A relationship between health status and political participation is well established, but the direction and strength of the relationship varies by race/ethnicity, health condition, income, and education. [32][33][34][35][36][37][38] As the focus of this paper is on racial health inequities, I will focus my discussion on the political consequences of health inequities. ...

... Republican and Democratic respondents are taking cues from their respective party leadership. For example, Republicans are less likely to receive vaccination and to comply with mitigation protocols, such as mask-wearing and social distancing [36,37]. Republicans are also less likely to vaccinate their children [27] and more likely to oppose a vaccine mandate for schoolchildren [38]. ...

... Participants were asked to rate their agreement with two statements: a) "All parents should have the option of no-cost, in home parenting support" and "All parents should receive tax credits for parenting classes" using a 5-point Likert scale. These statements were adapted from a study examining public perceptions on preventing adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) (Purtle et al., 2020(Purtle et al., , 2021. ...

... 30,31 A relationship between health status and political participation is well established, but the direction and strength of the relationship varies by race/ethnicity, health condition, income, and education. [32][33][34][35][36][37][38] As the focus of this paper is on racial health inequities, I will focus my discussion on the political consequences of health inequities. ...

... Several studies have documented the views of students and graduates, who are found to be more liberal than their peers who did not go to HE (Campbell & Horowitz, 2016;Castro Samayoa et al., 2018;Pascarella et al., 2012). However, there are still significant gaps in establishing the role of HE (Strother et al., 2020). ...

... Our findings complement evidence from previous studies on vaccine prioritization preferences (Ceccato et al., 2021;Duch et al., 2021;Gollust et al., 2020;Knotz et al., 2021a;Luyten et al., 2022;Persad et al., 2021;Reeskens et al., 2021;Schaeffer and Haderup Larsen, 2022), by highlighting that the public's prioritization preferences are not only remarkably consistent across the five countries we study, but also within each country, and suggesting low levels of polarization about who should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination. ...

... Where this advice was followed, there were varying degrees of success in slowing the spread of infection (Doherty et al., 2020;Gusmano et al., 2020;Ivory et al., 2021;Pei et al., 2020). Many observers argued that the vast majority of serious illnesses and deaths would have been preventable had early federal government action been taken (Brown, 2021;Haeder & Gollust, 2020;Kim & Kreps, 2020;Stolberg, 2020;Woolhandler et al., 2021). ...