Suchergebnisse

The increase in the prevalence of highly publicized police officer-involved homicides (OIHs) of Black and Hispanic community members has eroded trust in law enforcement. This study posits that these OIHs are a manifestation of the structural disparities resulting from racial/ethnic segregation in metropolitan areas. We use Poisson panel Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models to estimate this relationship with data from the Fatal Encounters project, American Community Survey, and various police department data sources. These models demonstrate that segregation characterized by the uneven distribution of Blacks to Whites is positively related to Black OIHs. Likewise, segregation characterized by the uneven distribution of Hispanics to Whites is positively associated with Hispanic OIHs. Meanwhile, the isolation of Blacks from Whites is negatively related to OIHs, and the isolation of Hispanics from Whites has no significant association with OIHs. These diverging relationships indicate the association of segregation to OIHs is more nuanced than previously argued.

Objectives: We evaluated the Fatal Encounters (FE) database as an open-source surveillance system for tracking police-related deaths (PRDs).Methods: We compared the coverage of FE data to several known government sources of police-related deaths and police homicide data. We also replicated incident selection from a recent review of the National Violent Death Reporting System.Results: FE collected data on n = 23,578 PRDs from 2000–2017. A pilot study and ongoing data integration suggest greater coverage than extant data sets. Advantages of the FE data include circumstance of death specificity, incident geo-locations, identification of involved police-agencies, and near immediate availability of data. Disadvantages include a high rate of missingness for decedent race/ethnicity, potentially higher rates of missing incidents in older data, and the exclusion of more comprehensive police use-of-force and nonlethal use-of-force data—a critique applicable to all extant data sets.Conclusions: FE is the largest collection of PRDs in the United States and remains as the most likely source for historical trend comparisons and police-department level analyses of the causes of PRDs.

Objectives: We evaluated the Fatal Encounters (FE) database as an open-source surveillance system for tracking police-related deaths (PRDs).Methods: We compared the coverage of FE data to several known government sources of police-related deaths and police homicide data. We also replicated incident selection from a recent review of the National Violent Death Reporting System.Results: FE collected data on n = 23,578 PRDs from 2000–2017. A pilot study and ongoing data integration suggest greater coverage than extant data sets. Advantages of the FE data include circumstance of death specificity, incident geo-locations, identification of involved police-agencies, and near immediate availability of data. Disadvantages include a high rate of missingness for decedent race/ethnicity, potentially higher rates of missing incidents in older data, and the exclusion of more comprehensive police use-of-force and nonlethal use-of-force data—a critique applicable to all extant data sets.Conclusions: FE is the largest collection of PRDs in the United States and remains as the most likely source for historical trend comparisons and police-department level analyses of the causes of PRDs.

High acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is instrumental to ending the pandemic. Vaccine acceptance by subgroups of the population depends on their trust in COVID-19 vaccines. We surveyed a probability-based internet panel of 7832 adults from December 23, 2020-January 19, 2021 about their likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine and the following domains of trust: an individual's generalized trust, trust in COVID-19 vaccine's efficacy and safety, trust in the governmental approval process and general vaccine development process for COVID-19 vaccines, trust in their physician about COVID-19, and trust in other sources about COVID-19. We included identified at-risk subgroups: healthcare workers, older adults (65-74-year-olds and≥75-year-olds), frontline essential workers, other essential workers, and individuals with high-risk chronic conditions. Of 5979 respondents, only 57.4% said they were very likely or somewhat likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine. More hesitant respondents (p<0.05) included: women, young adults (18-49years), Blacks, individuals with lower education, those with lower income, and individuals without high-risk chronic conditions. Lack of trust in the vaccine approval and development processes explained most of the demographic variation in stated vaccination likelihood, while other domains of trust explained less variation. We conclude that hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccines is high overall and among at-risk subgroups, and hesitancy is strongly tied to trust in the vaccine approval and development processes. Building trust is critical to ending the pandemic.

High acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is instrumental to ending the pandemic. Vaccine acceptance by subgroups of the population depends on their trust in COVID-19 vaccines. We surveyed a probability-based internet panel of 7832 adults from December 23, 2020-January 19, 2021 about their likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine and the following domains of trust: an individual's generalized trust, trust in COVID-19 vaccine's efficacy and safety, trust in the governmental approval process and general vaccine development process for COVID-19 vaccines, trust in their physician about COVID-19, and trust in other sources about COVID-19. We included identified at-risk subgroups: healthcare workers, older adults (65-74-year-olds and≥75-year-olds), frontline essential workers, other essential workers, and individuals with high-risk chronic conditions. Of 5979 respondents, only 57.4% said they were very likely or somewhat likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine. More hesitant respondents (p<0.05) included: women, young adults (18-49years), Blacks, individuals with lower education, those with lower income, and individuals without high-risk chronic conditions. Lack of trust in the vaccine approval and development processes explained most of the demographic variation in stated vaccination likelihood, while other domains of trust explained less variation. We conclude that hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccines is high overall and among at-risk subgroups, and hesitancy is strongly tied to trust in the vaccine approval and development processes. Building trust is critical to ending the pandemic.