Coronavirus stigmatization and psychological distress among Asians in the United States

Abstract

Objectives: Coronavirus stigmatization may be disproportionately impacting ethnoracial minority groups in the US. We test three hypotheses: [H1] Asians in the US are more likely to report experiencing coronavirus stigmatization than non-Hispanic Whites; [H2] Coronavirus stigmatization is associated with psychological distress; [H3] Magnitude of association between coronavirus stigmatization and psychological distress is more pronounced among US-born Asians, compared to non-Hispanic Whites. Design: We analyzed cross-sectional survey data from the 10-31 March 2020 wave of the Understanding America Survey, a nationally representative survey of adults in the US. Psychological distress was assessed with the PHQ-4. Measures of association were estimated using multiple logistic regression and survey sampling weights. Predicted probabilities were calculated using marginal standardization (n = 6707).Results: [H1] The adjusted predicted probability of experiencing any coronavirus stigma among foreign-born Asians (11.2%, 95% CI: 5.5-17.0%; E-value = 4.52), US-born Asians (10.9%, 95% CI: 5.8-16.0%; E-value = 4.23), Blacks (8.0%, 95% CI: 5.3-10.7%; E-value = 2.92), and Hispanic Whites (7.3%, 95% CI: 4.6-9.9%; E-value = 2.58) was significantly greater than non-Hispanic Whites (4.5%, 95% CI: 3.7-5.4%). [H2] Individuals reporting any coronavirus stigma experience were significantly more likely to exhibit psychological distress (19.9%, 95% CI: 14.6-25.2% vs 10.6%, 9.6-11.6%; E-value = 3.16). [H3] The overall magnitude of association between experience of any coronavirus stigma and psychological distress was not significantly between US-born Asians and non-Hispanic Whites, though we found gender to mask this effect. US-born Asian females who experienced coronavirus stigmatization were more likely to exhibit psychological distress than non-Hispanic white females who experienced coronavirus stigmatization (relative risk (RR): 10.21, 95% CI: 2.69-38.74 vs 1.24, 95% CI: 0.76-2.01; p < 0.01). Conclusion: Comprehensive measures around care seeking, public awareness, and disaggregated data collection are needed to ARTICLE HISTORY

Parental psychological distress and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination: A cross-sectional survey in Shenzhen, China

“…Nearly one year passed since the onset of COVID-19, the prevalence of psychological distress among parents in our study was 21.2%, in which only 3.3% were moderate to severe symptom. Using the cut-off point of 6 in PHQ-4, our result was greatly lower than the prevalence of moderate to severe symptom in Germany and Austria (19.0%) ( Schnell and Krampe, 2020 ), America (11.2%-11.3%) ( Kämpfen et al, 2020 ; Pan et al, 2021 ), and Saudi Arabia (14.5%) ( Joseph et al, 2021 ). In addition to the disparities of the cultural, social, and economic backgrounds, the environment people live may also play an essential role in stabilizing their emotions.…”

COVID-19 Pandemic Support Programs for Healthcare Workers and Implications for Occupational Mental Health: A Narrative Review

“…Concurrent events of police brutality and racial injustices have exacerbated these inequities. COVID-19 has also induced a resurgence of xenophobia and stigmatization against Asian Americans [ 48 ]. HCW may also experience the emotional and psychological effects of xenophobia and racism as both perpetrators or victims [ 49 ].…”

Stigmatization of Chinese and Asian-looking people during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

“…The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic may have activated the BIS in the general population [ 18 , 19 ], thereby increasing stigmatization [ 11 , 20 , 21 ]. Reports and initial studies suggest that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic may indeed have led to an increase in stigmatization of Chinese and Asian-looking people, who are perceived by some people as posing an infection risk (e.g., [ 3 – 6 , 22 , 23 ]). Several studies also observed an increase in the use of stigmatizing language on the internet during the early phase of the pandemic, which supports this notion (e.g., [ 24 – 26 ]).…”