Search results

This study examines chronic illness, disability and social inequality within an exposure-vulnerabilities theoretical framework.

Using the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), a preeminent source of national behavioral health estimates of chronic medical illness, stress and disability, for selected sample years 2005–2014, we construct and analyze two foundational hypotheses underlying the exposure-vulnerabilities model: (1) greater exposure to stressors (i.e., chronic medical illness) among racial/ethnic minority populations yields higher levels of serious psychological distress, which in turn increases the likelihood of medical disability; (2) greater vulnerability among minority populations to stressors such as chronic medical illness exacerbates the impact of these conditions on mental health as well as the impact of mental health on medical disability.

Results of our analyses provided mixed support for the vulnerability (moderator) hypothesis, but not for the exposure (mediation) hypothesis. In the exposure models, while Blacks were more likely than Whites to have a long-term disability, the pathway to disability through chronic illness and serious psychological distress did not emerge. Rather, Whites were more likely than Blacks and Latinx to have a chronic illness and to have experienced severe psychological distress (both of which themselves were related to disability). In the vulnerability models, both Blacks and Latinx with chronic medical illness were more likely than Whites to experience serious psychological distress, although Whites with serious psychological distress were more likely than these groups to have a long-term disability.

Several possibilities for understanding the failure to uncover an exposure dynamic in the model turn on the potential intersectional effects of age and gender, as well as several other covariates that seem to confound the linkages in the model (e.g., issues of stigma, social support, education).

This study (1) extends the racial/ethnic disparities in exposure-vulnerability framework by including factors measuring chronic medical illness and disability which: (2) explicitly test exposure and vulnerability hypotheses in minority populations; (3) develop and test the causal linkages in the hypothesized processes, based on innovations in general structural equation models, and lastly; (4) use national population estimates of these conditions which are rarely, if ever, investigated in this kind of causal framework.

The disparities of COVID-19 vaccination rates between the rural and urban areas have become apparent during this pandemic. There is a need to understand the root causes of vaccine hesitancy demonstrated by the rural population to increase coverage and to contain the disease spread throughout the United States. This study aimed to explore other factors influencing vaccine hesitancy among rural dwellers besides the geography-related barriers such as poor health care access and individuals having no or suboptimal insurance coverage.

By reviewing existing data and literature about vaccination, health literacy, and behaviors, and prevailing ideologies, we discuss the potential causes of vaccine hesitancy in rural areas that could create barriers for successful public health efforts related to vaccine coverage and provide suggestions to ameliorate the situation.

Geography-related barriers, health literacy, and preconceived notions are key determinants of adopting healthy behaviors and complying with public health authorities' recommendations among rural individuals during a public-health crisis. We argue that ideology, which is much deeper than preconception or misconception on vaccination, should be incorporated as a key factor to redefine the term “vulnerable populations” in public health research.

The limitation of our study is that we have not found an effective way to encourage the populations who hold conservative religious and political ideologies to join the efforts for public health. Even though geography-related barriers may strongly impact the rural dwellers in achieving optimal health, the various forms of ideologies they have toward certain health behaviors cannot be discounted to understand and address vaccine-related disparities in rural areas. There is a need to redefine the term “vulnerable population” particularly as it relates to rural areas in the United States. During large-scale public health disasters, scholars and public health authorities should consider the ideologies of individuals, in addition to other factors such as race/ethnicity, area of residence (rural vs. urban), and socioeconomic factors influencing the existing vulnerabilities and health disparities.

This paper aims to explore how young students experience the contribution of a pedagogical assemblage based on design thinking (DT) while contributing to the transition to a more just and sustainable university.

This qualitative research considers the case of two pedagogical experiences developed at Universitat Politècnica de Valencià, Spain. In both experiences, a methodological proposal that includes practices of care, just transitions and DT was implemented. The data obtained through in-depth interviews, surveys and digital whiteboard labels was analyzed under the lens of three relational categories in the context of sustainability.

Learnings are acquired through five categories: place-based learning, prior learning, embodied learning, collaborative teamwork and intersectionality. The research shows how the subjective knowledge of young students positions them as co-designers and leaders of a University that drives a more just and sustainable transition.

The originality of the paper lies in the shift of DT from a human-based approach to a justice-oriented relational approach.

Since the development of the COVID-19 vaccinations, questions surrounding race have been prominent in the literature on vaccine uptake. Early in the vaccine rollout, public health officials were concerned with the relatively lower rates of uptake among certain racial/ethnic minority groups. We suggest that this may also be patterned by racial/ethnic residential segregation, which previous work has demonstrated to be an important factor for both health and access to health care.

In this study, we examine county-level vaccination rates, racial/ethnic composition, and residential segregation across the U.S. We compile data from several sources, including the American Community Survey (ACS) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) measured at the county level.

We find that just looking at the associations between racial/ethnic composition and vaccination rates, both percent Black and percent White are significant and negative, meaning that higher percentages of these groups in a county are associated with lower vaccination rates, whereas the opposite is the case for percent Latino. When we factor in segregation, as measured by the index of dissimilarity, the patterns change somewhat. Dissimilarity itself was not significant in the models across all groups, but when interacted with race/ethnic composition, it moderates the association. For both percent Black and percent White, the interaction with the Black-White dissimilarity index is significant and negative, meaning that it deepens the negative association between composition and the vaccination rate.

The analysis is only limited to county-level measures of racial/ethnic composition and vaccination rates, so we are unable to see at the individual-level who is getting vaccinated.

We find that segregation moderates the association between racial/ethnic composition and vaccination rates, suggesting that local race relations in a county helps contextualize the compositional effects of race/ethnicity.

This paper investigates the role of economic disagreement in the cross-sectional pricing of individual stocks. Economic disagreement is quantified with ex ante measures of cross-sectional dispersion in economic forecasts from the Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF), determining the degree of disagreement among professional forecasters over changes in economic fundamentals.

The authors introduce a broad index of economic disagreement based on the innovations in the cross-sectional dispersion of economic forecasts for output, inflation and unemployment so that the index is a shock measure that captures different aspects of disagreement over economic fundamentals and also reflects unexpected news or surprise about the state of the aggregate economy. After building the broad index of economic disagreement, the authors test out-of-sample performance of the index in predicting the cross-sectional variation in future stock returns.

Univariate portfolio analyses indicate that decile portfolios that are long in stocks with the lowest disagreement beta and short in stocks with the highest disagreement beta yield a risk-adjusted annual return of 7.2%. The results remain robust after controlling for well-known pricing effects. The results are consistent with a preference-based explanation that ambiguity-averse investors demand extra compensation to hold stocks with high disagreement risk and the investors are willing to pay high prices for stocks with large hedging benefits. The results also support the mispricing hypothesis that the high disagreement beta provides an indirect way to measure dispersed opinion and overpricing.

Most literature measures disagreement about individual stocks with the standard deviation of earnings forecasts made by financial analysts and examines the cross-sectional relation between this measure and individual stock returns. Unlike prior studies, the authors focus on disagreement about the economy instead of disagreement about earnings growth. The authors' argument is that disagreement about the economy is a major factor that would explain disagreement about stock fundamentals. The authors find that disagreement in economic forecasts does indeed have a significant impact on the cross-sectional pricing of individual stocks.

This study aims to explore a potential conference experience design strategy, namely, festivalization. It investigates the potential festivalization effects on conference attendees in two formats of business conferences: virtual and in-person.

A series of two scenario-based experimental studies were conducted. A series of one-way analysis of covariance and PROCESS procedures (Model 6) were performed for data analysis.

The inclusion of festivalization elements significantly enhances positive responses of attendees, especially for in-person conferences. This effect is further explained by a serial mediation effect, where enhanced perceived values and conference engagement play key roles in improving attendees’ conference experience.

By incorporating festivalization elements, conference organizers can create a more engaging and satisfying event experience for attendees. This can lead to greater satisfaction, positive word-of-mouth and increased registrations.

This study represents a pioneering effort in revealing the underlining mechanisms that explain how festivalization affects attendee engagement and subsequent behaviors in business event management in both face-to-face and virtual settings.