Background With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic surging and new mutations evolving, trust in vaccines is essential. Methods We explored correlates of vaccine hesitancy, considering political believes and psychosocial concepts, conducting a non-probability quota-sampled online survey with 1007 Austrians. Results We identified several important correlates of vaccine hesitancy, ranging from demographics to complex factors such as voting behavior or trust in the government. Among those with hesitancy towards a COVID-19 vaccine, having voted for opposition parties (opp) or not voted (novote) were (95% Confidence Intervall (CI)opp, 1.44–2.95) to 2.25-times (95%CInovote, 1.53–3.30) that of having voted for governing parties. Only 46.2% trusted the Austrian government to provide safe vaccines, and 80.7% requested independent scientific evaluations regarding vaccine safety to increase willingness to vaccine. Conclusions Contrary to expected, psychosocial dimensions were only weakly correlated with vaccine hesitancy. However, the strong correlation between distrust in the vaccine and distrust in authorities suggests a common cause of disengagement from public discourse.

Objectives To explore changes in quality of life and perceived productivity, focusing on the effects of working from home during the first COVID-19 50-day mitigation period in Austria. Methods We conducted an Austrian-representative online survey (N = 1010) of self-reported life- and work-related changes during the first COVID-19 50-day mitigation period (March 16 through May 1 2020) compared to the situation before. We used multinominal logistic regression models to identify correlates of improved/decreased quality of life in the entire sample, and of improved/decreased productivity in a subsample of the working population (N = 686). We also calculated age- and multivariable-adjusted ORs and 95% CIs of an improved/decreased quality of life and an improved/decreased productivity by work from home status. Results During the COVID-19 mitigation period, quality of life improved in 17.5%, but decreased in 20.7% of the general Austrian population; perceived productivity at work increased in 12.7%, but decreased in 30.2% of the working population. Working from home during the mitigation period was associated with an increased quality of life (vs. none, partially: OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.09–3.91; all the time: 3.69, 1.86–7.29). In contrast, perceived productivity seemed to decrease when people worked from home (vs. none, partially: 1.42, 0.86–2.35; all the time: 1.48, 0.85–2.58). Working from home and related benefits were not equally distributed among gender, age, and educational attainment. Conclusions A transition to more flexibility of workplace and working hours for employees could have important positive consequences for family and professional life, for stakeholders, for public health, and ultimately for the environment.

No abstract

Experimental evidence indicates that exercise performed at different times of the day may affect circadian rhythms and circadian disruption has been linked to breast and prostate cancer. We examined in a population‐based case‐control study (MCC‐Spain) if the time‐of‐day when physical activity is done affects prostate and breast cancer risk. Lifetime recreational and household physical activity was assessed by in‐person interviews. Information on time‐of‐day of activity (assessed approximately 3 years after the assessment of lifetime physical activity and confounders) was available for 781 breast cancer cases, 865 population female controls, 504 prostate cases and 645 population male controls from 10 Spanish regions, 2008‐2013. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for different activity timings compared to inactive subjects using unconditional logistic regression adjusting for confounders. Early morning (8‐10 am) activity was associated with a protective effect compared to no physical activity for both breast (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.48‐1.15) and prostate cancer (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.44‐1.20); meta‐OR for the two cancers combined 0.74 (95%CI = 0.53‐1.02). There was no effect observed for breast or prostate cancer for late morning to afternoon activity while a protective effect was also observed for evening activity only for prostate cancer (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.45‐1.24). Protective effects of early morning activity were more pronounced for intermediate/evening chronotypes for both cancers. This is the first population‐based investigation identifying a differential effect of timing of physical activity on cancer risk with more pronounced effects for morning hour activity. Our results, if confirmed, may improve current physical activity recommendations for cancer prevention.