Student COVID-Related Behavioral Adherence Report

FOR RELEASE on January 2021

Student COVID-Related Behavioral Adherence Report FOR INQUIRIES: USC Student Health | Keck Medicine of USC Sarah Van Orman, ​Chief Health Officer, USC Student Health Paula Swinford, ​Director, Office for Health Promotion Strategy Prawit Thainiyom,​ Associate Director, Data and Metrics Oliver Tacto,​ Associate Director, Communication Amanda Vanni,​ Associate Director, Community Engagement Diane Medsker​, Senior Learning and Development Specialist Lauren Martinez,​ Senior Biostatistician Andrea Moore,​ Health Promotion Specialist Elissa Hawker,​ Health Promotion Specialist

RECOMMENDED CITATION: USC Student Health, January 2021, “Student COVID-Related Behavioral Adherence Report”

Revised on 01/29/2021

1 of 20

Table of Contents Key Takeaways

4

Background & Objective

5

Data Summary and Participant Characteristics

6

Participation in Risky COVID-Related Behaviors

6

Beliefs about Individual and Community COVID-19 Risk

8

Student-held Values

8

Attitudes towards the COVID-19 Vaccine

9

Support of Potential Return-to-Campus Policies

9

Wellbeing and COVID-Related Behaviors and Attitudes

9

Next Steps

10

Tables and Figures

11

Figure 1: Description of ‘area around UPC’

11

Table 1: Participant demographics of students living around UPC in Fall 2020 (n=1,431)

12

Table 2: Demographic/Identity characteristics: Student participation in risky social and travel behaviors among students living around UPC in Fall 2020 13 Table 3: School Affiliation: Student participation in risky social and travel behaviors among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

14

Table 4: Perceptions of individual and community vulnerability to COVID-19 among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

15

Revised on 01/29/2021

2 of 20

Â

Table 5: Student-held values among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

16

Table 6: Low COVID-19 vaccine confidence among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

16

Table 7: Potential policy support among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

18

Table 8: Participation in risky COVID-related behaviors by wellbeing category among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

19

Table 9: COVID-related attitudes by wellbeing category among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

19

Revised on 01/29/2021

3 of 20

Key Takeaways The following are key takeaways from this research among USC students living around UPC in Fall 2020: ●

Over half of students reported participating in risky social behaviors, and over one third reported participating in risky travel-related behaviors. White, American and undergraduate students more often reported participating in these activities, relative to students overall. Also, students living with disabilities more often reported engaging in risky social behaviors, compared to students without disabilities. This could be a relevant area for further exploration.

●

Over one quarter of students reported feeling personally vulnerable to COVID-19, but about half this amount indicated concern about infecting vulnerable community members. There were no associations between perception of personal and/or community risk and reported participation in risky behaviors.

●

Values often held by students were caring for others and fairness.

These could be relevant themes for messaging related to behavioral compliance.

●

Over three quarters of students have high confidence in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it is available, though about 10% of students had low confidence in this. One quarter of Black students reported low confidence in receiving the vaccine as soon as it is available, which echoes national concerns about vaccine hesitancy in the Black community.

Revised on 01/29/2021

●

●

Students report interest in being engaged in policy-making around return-to-campus, and support the creation of safe outdoor spaces for interaction.

There does not appear to be an association between wellbeing and participation in risky behaviors. Students with higher wellbeing more often reported being able to socialize with family and friends without seeing them in person, possibly indicating the importance of social relationships, or the resilience of students with high wellbeing.

If you are interested in sharing additional resources with us to review and include, please contact USC Student Health - Office for Health Promotion Strategy, Backbone for the USC Well-being Collective at ​hpstrategy@usc.edu​.

4 of 20

Â

Background & Objective In response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the University of Southern California has deployed numerous strategies guided by public health and internal experts to curb the spread of disease among constituents, in particular students, living or working on or near the University Park Campus.

In order to bolster the effectiveness of these efforts, the Office for Health Promotion Strategy was commissioned to pursue data collection and engagement efforts for the student population.

Based on the spring 2020 administration of the Student Well-being Index Survey, among students living in Los Angeles the following protective behaviors were reported: 92.7% cleaned their hands often with soap and water for 20 seconds or used hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol; 95.5% practiced social distancing and/or self-isolation; and 88.3% used something to cover their nose and mouth (such as wearing bandanas or homemade fabric masks) when leaving home to perform necessary errands or go to the doctor.

We do not have any more current data than May of 2020, nor do we fully understand what drives adherence or nonadherence to public health guidelines among students living near the University Park Campus. Thus, the objectives of this particular data collection and report are:

Moving forward, we plan to share subsets of these data back with the student community to foster trust and accountability, and highlight social norms information. This report is also one of three reports that will be submitted to USC senior administrators on the findings from the student surveys and engagement efforts to help inform decision-making, communication strategies, and policy development.

1) To learn from students (living on or near UPC): a) current protective behaviors and social norms, b) perception of risk c) attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccine d) support of potential return-to-campus policies Revised on 01/29/2021

5 of 20

Data Summary and Participant Characteristics There were 15,000 USC students who were invited to participate in this survey project from 12/16/20 - 1/2/21. These data represent responses from 1,431 students who indicated that they lived in the area around UPC in Fall 2020 (see ​Figure 1​ for area description). Given a lack of information about population demographics among students living in this area during this time, data were not weighted and there may be baises unaccounted for.

Table 1​ provides a demographic overview of participants included in these analyses. Compared to overall University demographics, undergraduates are over-represented in this survey (61.6%), and there may also be a higher proportion of students who identify as White (39.7%) and Asian/Asian-American (48.7%).​1​ These biases may reflect bias towards participation and/or may be reflective of the student population living around UPC in Fall 2020.

Participation in Risky COVID-Related Behaviors Two metrics were used to identify risky behaviors of students: risky COVID-related ​social​ behaviors​2​ and risky COVID-related ​travel​ behaviors.​3​,​4 It is estimated that in Fall 2020, 53.7% (95% CI: 50.6 - 56.8%; ​Table 2​) of students participated in risky COVID-related social behaviors. Relative to students overall,​5​ the following groups of students are estimated to have participated in risky social behaviors at higher rates: White students (66.3%, 95% CI: 61.4 1

The institutional metric for race/ethnicity is different from the metric used in this project, so a direct comparison is not possible.

Individuals were classified as participating in risky social behaviors if they reported attending a gathering with one of the following characteristics: with people from more than 3 households; with people from more than 10 households; in an indoor setting; for more than two hours; with eating and/or drinking, with singing, chanting or shouting; and/or where food and beverage were shared. This list was created from LA County’s Guidance for Small Private Gatherings. Retrieved from http://www.ph.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/docs/people/GuidanceGatherings.pdf​ on November 11, 2020.

3 Individuals were classified as participating in risky travel behaviors if they reported NOT doing one of the following items: before traveling,​ checked if COVID-19 was spreading in the travel destination; checked if people I was living with in Los Angeles, people I would be traveling with, or people I would meet at my travel destination could be at a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19; checked if Los Angeles had high transmission rates; checked if the state I was traveling to required a 14-day quarantine upon my arrival; got tested for COVID-19 before my departure from Los Angeles; during travel: stayed at least 6 feet away from others at all times during travel; got tested for COVID-19 after arriving at my destination; stayed physically distant from household members at the destination for 14 days after arrival; wore a face covering at all times around household members while in the destination location; sanitized common surfaces in shared spaces such as bathrooms, kitchens, and regularly washed or sanitized my hands while in the destination location; avoided sharing meals with members outside of the household at the destination; after traveling: got tested for COVID-19 after returning to my residence in Los Angeles; stayed physically distant from household members in my residence in Los Angeles for 14 days after returning; wore a face covering at all times around household members for 14 days after returning; sanitized common surfaces in shared spaces such as bathrooms, kitchens, and regularly washed or sanitized my hands; avoided going to see people outside my household for 14 days after returning. ​This list was based upon recommendations from USC; https://coronavirus.usc.edu/2020/11/10/11-10-thanksgiving-holidays-winter-break-travel-and-safety/ 4 It is unclear if there may be biases in reporting risky behaviors by demographics or other factors.

5 Given small n of some subgroups, all comparisons are to students overall, rather than other response options of the same variable.

2

Revised on 01/29/2021

6 of 20

70.9%), American students (61.1%, 95% CI: 57.4 - 64.7%), undergraduate students (65.2% 95% CI: 61.3 - 68.9%), and students living with a disability (65.9%, 95% CI: 59.9 - 71.6)​6​. Students in PhD programs (29.9%, 95% CI: 21.8 - 39.1%) and international students (38.4%, 95% CI: 33.1 - 44.0%) are estimated to have participated in risky social behaviors at lower rates than students overall.

It is estimated that in Fall 2020, 39.0% (95% CI: 36.0 - 42.1%) of students participated in risky COVID-related travel behaviors. Relative to students overall, the following groups of students are estimated to have participated in risky travel behaviors at higher rates: White students (54.6%, 95% CI: 49.6 - 59.5), American students (48.4%, 95% CI: 44.6 - 52.1%), and undergraduate students (46.8%, 95% CI: 42.8 - 50.8%). Students identifying as Asian/Asian-American (27.7, 95% CI: 23.8 - 31.8%), International (18.8, 95% CI: 14.6 - 23.5%) and in PhD programs (25.6, 95% CI: 18.0 - 34.5%) are estimated to have participated in risky travel behaviors at lower rates than students overall.

Table 3​ describes rates of risky COVID-related behaviors by school. All schools have different student demographic profiles so these data are not presented for comparative purposes, but for context if/when schools are engaged on this topic. There are few differences between schools in student participation in risky COVID-related behaviors, with two exceptions: 1) students at the Ostrow School of Dentistry had lower rates of risky social behaviors (32.4%, 95% CI: 18.0 - 49.8%), compared to students overall, likely related to COVID cases among students in this school, and 2) students at the Viterbi School of Engineering had lower rates of risky travel behaviors (29.1%, 95% CI: 24.7 - 33.7%), compared to students overall, likely related to the large population of international students in this school.

6

Students reporting chronic mental health conditions (for example, depression, PTSD, anxiety disorder) appear to be strong drivers of this finding, though those with ADHD and chronic medical conditions also appear to contribute.

Revised on 01/29/2021

7 of 20

Beliefs about Individual and Community COVID-19 Risk Over one quarter of students reported feeling personally vulnerable to COVID-19 (27.5%, 95% CI: 24.9 - 30.3%, ​Table 4​).​7​ About half this amount reported a likelihood of infecting vulnerable community members with COVID-10 (12.7%, 95% CI: 10.8 - 14.8). This discrepancy could be due to a variety of factors, including a focus on one’s own health risks rather than community risks, but also minimal interaction with vulnerable community members, the need to first be infected in order to infect others, self-efficacy to isolate after contracting COVID-19, and other factors.

There are not substantial differences in perception of personal or community risk between students overall and students reporting risky behaviors, though perception of vulnerability and behaviors are expected to be bi-directional (ie, students who perceive a greater risk are expected to practice safer behaviors, and students who practice safer behaviors are also expected to perceive less risk).

Student-held Values In order to determine relevant content for messaging, students were asked a short set of questions to determine to what extent they hold the following values​8​: caring,​9​ fairness,​10​ and sanctity.​11​ Of these three, caring for others (86.1% 95% CI: 83.9 - 88.1%; ​Table 5​) is the value estimated to be held most often by these students living around UPC in Fall 2020, with fairness being another strongly-held value (82.0%, 95% CI: 79.6 - 84.3%). These could be appropriate sentiments to draw upon for messaging and outreach related to COVID-19 compliance-related behaviors.

There were not substantial differences in values between students overall and those who reported risky behaviors, though caring is estimated to be especially high among those who practice risky social behaviors.

7

Items in this section adapted from the​ COVID-19 Own Risk Appraisal Scale (CORAS): Development and validation in two samples from the United Kingdom. ​Journal of health psychology,​ 1359105320967429. Single item responses were used rather than composite scores or latent factors for ease of interpretation.

8 Value domains were defined using a subset of those included in The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ-30, July 2008) by Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian Nosek. Students can receive a score of 0-20 for each of the 3 value domains included in the questionnaire, with each domain in this survey having 4 question items. Those with a score >= 12 are considered to hold the given value.

9 Example statement: ‘​When deciding whether something is right or wrong, I consider whether or not someone suffered emotionally’.

10 Example statement: ‘​When deciding whether something is right or wrong, I consider whether or not some people were treated differently than others.’

11 Example statement: ‘​When deciding whether something is right or wrong, I consider whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency.’

Revised on 01/29/2021

8 of 20

Attitudes towards the COVID-19 Vaccine Approximately three quarters of students have high individual confidence in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as available (76.6%, 95% CI: 73.9 - 79.1%). They less often agree that their student peers will receive the vaccine as soon as available (65.6%, 95% CI: 62.7 - 68.5%).​12 There were 112 students (10.8%, 95% CI: 9.0 - 12.9%) who indicated low confidence in receiving the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as it is available. Students who identified as Black more often had low confidence in receiving the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as it is available (25.9%, 95% CI: 15.3 - 39.0%, ​Table 6​). Among Black students, this is likely driven by systemic inequity and the well documented legacy of violence in the American medical system against Black individuals. There may be other minoritized groups who have small numbers of participants in this survey who also have low trust in vaccines and/or our medical system.

Support of Potential Return-to-Campus Policies Students were asked to indicate their likelihood to support a series of potential policies related to return-to-campus (​Table 7​). Students frequently reporting being likely to support policies to engage students in policy-making (84.4%, 95% CI: 82.1 - 86.6%), to create safe outdoor spaces (83.3%, 95% CI: 80.9 - 85.5%) and to allow students in crowded housing to move into USC housing (72.2%, 95% CI: 69.4 - 75.0%). The potential policy with the least amount of support among students was a ban 12

Vaccine attitudes were measured by single items on confidence in personally receiving the vaccine as soon as available and on agreement that other USC students will receive the vaccine as soon as it is available to them.

Revised on 01/29/2021

on social gatherings until everyone receives the COVID-19 vaccine, though over one third of students indicated they would be likely to support this policy (39.7%, 95% CI: 36.7 - 42.7%).

Wellbeing and COVID-Related Behaviors and Attitudes Student wellbeing was measured using the WHO-5,​13​ which provides a raw score from 0-25. The average score was 11.4 +/- 5.7.​14​ Students were classified into approximate​15​ tertiles of high wellbeing (score range: 0-8), moderate wellbeing (score range: 9-14), and low wellbeing (score range: 15-25). There were no differences in risky COVID-related behaviors by wellbeing category (​Table 8​).

Students were also asked to rate their agreement with statements related to social behaviors during the pandemic (​Table 9​). Overall, students often felt they could make the sacrifice of staying home in order to ensure a safe return to campus, and often felt their actions make a difference in the spread of COVID-19. There were few differences in these attitudes by wellbeing category, with the exception that students with high wellbeing more often felt they could socialize without seeing family and friends in person (62.4%, 95% CI: 56.9 - 67.7%), compared to students with low 13

​Topp, Christian Winther, et al. "The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature." ​Psychotherapy and psychosomatics​ 84.3 (2015): 167-176.

14 Examining differences in wellbeing by student demographics or other groups is not included in these analyses, but detailed reports on this topic, including from data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, can be found at https://sites.usc.edu/studentwellbeing/reports/ 15 Approximations were used so that individuals with the same score would always be placed in the same category.

9 of 20

 wellbeing (48.1%, 95% CI: 42.9 - 53.3%). Given that these data are cross-sectional it’s not clear if the ability to socialize remotely drives wellbeing, or if those with higher wellbeing get the same fulfillment from social relationships, even when not in-person.

Next Steps This report is one of three that will be submitted to USC administrators to help inform decision-making, communication strategies, and policy development. Additional next steps include the following: 1. Identify salient findings and share back with student communities via Data Walks and Community Forums 2. Identify topics of interest for additional exploration via focus groups, e.g. vaccine hesitancy among our Black students, including trusted sources of information in order to inform potential outreach efforts 3. Create and share a COVID-19 Brief with USC Well-being Collective partners and other relevant stakeholders. Report will include: a. A high level summary of findings from surveys b. Thematic findings from qualitative data

Revised on 01/29/2021

10 of 20

Tables and Figures Figure 1: Description of ‘area around UPC’

Revised on 01/29/2021

11 of 20

Table 1: Participant demographics of students living around UPC in Fall 2020 (n=1,431)​16 N (%) Gender Identity​17 Genderqueer/gender non-conforming, Non-binary, or Self-Identify​18

22 (2.1%)

Man

431 (41.8%)

Woman

577 (56.0%)

Sexual Orientation Asexual

45 (4.5%)

Bisexual

115 (11.5%)

Gay

47 (4.7%)

Heterosexual

762 (76.4%)

Lesbian

12 (1.2%)

Pansexual

15 (1.5%)

Queer

18 (1.8%)

Questioning

23 (2.3%)

Self-Identify

8 (0.8%)

Race/Ethnic Identity Asian or Asian American

495 (48.7%)

Black or African American

58 (5.7%)

Hispanic or Latinx

125 (12.3%)

Middle Eastern/North African, Arab or Arab American

39 (3.8%)

Native American, American Indian and/or Alaskan Native

7 (0.7%)

Native Hawaiian and/or Pacific Islander

7 (0.7%)

White

403 (39.7%)

Other

21 (2.1%)

International Yes

320 (22.4%)

No

1111 (77.6%)

Living with a Disability 16

Demographic data are not available from all participants. Also, for many questions participants had the option to select multiple identities. Therefore, percentages may not sum to 100% and totals may not sum to the total n.

17 Male and female gender identity include both cisgender and transgender students. There was only one participant who identified as transgender.

18 These categories were combined because of the small number of individuals who identified as being in each individual category: 4 identified as genderqueer/gender non-conforming, 12 identified as non-binary, and 6 indicated they self-identify.

Revised on 01/29/2021

Yes

267 (27.1%)

No

717 (72.9%)

First Generation to College Yes

190 (18.8%)

No

821 (81.2%) 12 of 20

Academic Level

Sexual Orientation

Bachelors

626 (61.1%)

Asexual

37.8 (23.8 - 54.5)

20.0 (9.6 - 34.6)​20

Masters

309 (30.1%)

Bisexual

53.0 (43.5 - 62.4)

41.7 (32.6 - 51.3)

Professional Doctorate

48 (4.7%)

Gay

55.3 (40.1 - 69.8)

38.3 (24.5 - 53.6)

PhD

117 (11.4%)

Heterosexual

54.9 (51.2 - 58.4)

39.9 (36.4 - 43.5)

Lesbian

41.7 (15.2 - 72.3)

58.3 (27.7 - 84.8)

Pansexual

46.7 (21.3 - 73.4)

46.7 (21.3 - 73.4)

Queer

55.6 (30.8 - 78.5)

55.6 (30.8 - 78.5)

Questioning

65.2 (42.7 - 83.6)

47.8 (26.8 - 69.4)

Self-Identify

62.5 (24.5 - 91.5)

37.5 (8.5 - 75.5)

Table 2: Demographic/Identity characteristics: Student participation in risky social and travel behaviors among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

All students​19

Proportion of students reporting risky COVID-related ​social behaviors

Proportion of students reporting risky COVID-related travel​ behaviors

Race/Ethnic Identity Asian or Asian American

46.5 (42.0 - 51.0)

27.7 (23.8 - 31.8)

% (95% CI)

% (95% CI)

60.3 (46.6 - 73.0)

31.0 (19.5 - 44.5)

53.7 (50.6 - 56.8)

39.0 (36.0 - 42.1)

Black or African American Hispanic or Latinx

53.6 (44.5 - 62.6)

45.6 (36.7 - 54.7)

Middle Eastern/North African, Arab or Arab American

46.2 (30.0 - 62.8)

35.9 (21.2 - 52.8)

Gender Identity Genderqueer/non-co nforming, Non-binary, or Self-Identify

59.1 (36.4 - 79.3)

Man

49.9 (45.1 - 54.7)

37.8 (33.2 - 42.6)

Woman

56.5 (52.3 - 60.6)

40.2 (36.2 - 44.3)

19

31.8 (13.9 - 54.9)

20

Students missing demographic data are excluded from these estimates

Revised on 01/29/2021

This relationship is primarily being driven by international students (in a logistic regression model with these two predictor variables, p-values were <0.0001 for international status and 0.08 for identification as asexual). In these data and in previous work, we’ve seen a higher number than expected of international students who report being asexual. This raises the qusetion of whether or not the term ‘asexual’ means the same to our international students as to our American students.

13 of 20

Native American, American Indian and/or Alaskan Native

71.4 (29.0 - 96.3)

28.6 (3.7 - 71.0)

Native Hawaiian and/or Pacific Islander

57.1 (18.4 - 90.1)

28.6 (3.7 - 71.0)

White

66.3 (61.4 - 70.9)

54.6 (49.6 - 59.5)

Other

52.4 (29.8 - 74.3)

28.6 (11.3 - 52.2)

International Yes

38.4 (33.1 - 44.0)

18.8 (14.6 - 23.5)

No

61.1 (57.4 - 64.7)

48.4 (44.6 - 52.1)

Living with a Disability Yes

65.9 (59.9 - 71.6)

43.8 (37.8 - 50.0)

No

49.4 (45.7 - 53.1)

37.2 (33.7 - 40.9)

First Generation to College

Table 3: School Affiliation: Student participation in risky social and travel behaviors among students living around UPC in Fall 2020​21 Proportion of students reporting risky COVID-related ​social behaviors

Proportion of students reporting risky COVID-related ​travel behaviors

% (95% CI)

% (95% CI)

Viterbi School of Engineering (n=413)

46.2 (41.4 - 51.2)

29.1 (24.7 - 33.7)

Marshall School of Business (n=152)

58.6 (50.3 - 66.5)

44.7 (36.7 - 53.0)

Dornsife College of Letters, Arts & Sciences -Social Sciences (n=151)

50.3 (42.1 - 58.6)

34.4 (26.9 - 42.6)

Dornsife College of Letters, Arts & Sciences -Natural Sciences and Mathematics (n=142)

50.0 (41.5 - 58.5)

39.4 (31.3 - 48.0)

Yes

44.7 (37.5 - 52.1)

33.2 (26.5 - 40.3)

No

56.0 (52.6 - 59.5)

40.9 (37.5 - 44.4)

Annenberg School for Communication (n=68)

58.8 (46.2 - 70.6)

38.2 (26.7 - 50.8) 38.6 (24.4 - 54.5)

65.2 (61.3 - 68.9)

46.8 (42.8 - 50.8)

Masters

46.7 (41.3 - 52.7)

32.7 (27.5 - 38.2)

Dornsife College of Letters, Arts & Sciences -Humanities (n=44)

56.8 (41.0 - 71.7)

Bachelors

Professional Doctorate

37.5 (24.0 - 52.6)

50.0 (35.2 - 64.8)

School of Cinematic Arts (n=43)

41.9 (27.0 - 57.9)

32.6 (19.1 - 48.5)

PhD

29.9 (21.8 - 39.1)

25.6 (18.0 - 34.5)

Academic Level

Revised on 01/29/2021

21

Only schools with >= 20 participants in this survey are included in these analyses 14 of 20

Ostrow School of Dentistry (n=37)

32.4 (18.0 - 49.8)

35.1 (20.2 - 52.5)

Thornton School of Music (n=28)

71.4 (51.3 - 86.8)

39.3 (21.5 - 59.4)

School of Theatre (n=23)

56.5 (34.5 - 76.8)

34.8 (16.4 - 57.3)

Sol Price School of Public Policy (n=23)

56.5 (34.5 - 76.8)

43.5 (23.2 - 65.5)

School of Architecture (n=22)

59.1 (36.4 - 79.3)

22.7 (7.8 - 45.4)

Keck School of Medicine (n=21)

61.9 (38.4 - 81.9)

42.9 (21.8 - 66.0)

Revised on 01/29/2021

Table 4: Perceptions of individual and community vulnerability to COVID-19 among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

All students % (95% CI)

Students reporting risky COVID-related social​ behaviors % (95% CI)

Students reporting risky COVID-related travel​ behaviors % (95% CI)

Proportion of students with...

Perception of individual vulnerability to COVID-19

27.5 (24.9 - 30.3)

28.0 (24.4 - 31.9)

24.6 (20.6 - 29.0)

Perception of likelihood to infect vulnerable community members with COVID-19

12.7 (10.8 - 14.8)

13.0 (10.4 - 16.0)

12.2 (9.3 - 15.7)

Perception that those they come into contact with are vulnerable to severe COVID-19

18.0 (15.8 - 20.5)

16.7 (13.7 - 19.9)

16.3 (12.9 - 20.2)

Perception of large chance of infecting others who will become severely ill with COVID-19

9.6 (7.9 - 11.5)

8.9 (6.7 - 11.5)

7.3 (5.0 - 10.2)

15 of 20

Table 5: Student-held values among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

All students % (95% CI)

Students reporting risky COVID-related social​ behaviors % (95% CI)

Students reporting risky COVID-related travel​ behaviors % (95% CI)

Caring

86.1 (83.9 - 88.1)

89.5 (86.7 - 91.9)

87.4 (83.8 - 90.4)

Fairness

82.0 (79.6 - 84.3)

83.7 (80.5 - 86.7)

82.1 (78.1 - 85.6)

Sanctity

57.5 (54.5 - 60.5)

55.2 (51.0 - 59.3)

53.0 (48.1 - 57.9)

Table 6: Low COVID-19 vaccine confidence among students living around UPC in Fall 2020 Proportion of students with low confidence in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as available % (95% CI​) All students

10.8 (9.0 - 12.9)

Gender Identity

Genderqueer/non-conforming, Non-binary, or Self-Identify

Man Woman

13.6 (2.9 - 34.9) 9.9 (7.3 - 13.2) 11.3 (8.8 - 14.2)

Sexual Orientation​22 Asexual

4.5 (0.5 - 15.5)

Bisexual

8.8 (4.3 - 15.5)

Gay

8.5 (2.4 - 20.4)

Heterosexual Lesbian

11.0 (8.9 - 13.5) 8.3 (0.2 - 38.5)

Pansexual

13.3 (1.7 - 40.5)

Questioning

13.0 (2.8 - 33.6)

22

There were no students identifying as Queer with low confidence in receiving the vaccine once available Revised on 01/29/2021

16 of 20

Self-Identify

25.0 (3.2 - 65.1)

Academic Level

Race/Ethnic Identity

Bachelors

Asian or Asian American

10.0 (7.5 - 13.0)

Masters

Black or African American

25.9 (15.3 - 39.0)

Professional Doctorate

Hispanic or Latinx

13.6 (8.1 - 20.9)

PhD

Middle Eastern/North African, Arab or Arab American

18.4 (7.7 - 34.3)

Native American, American Indian and/or Alaskan Native

28.6 (3.7 - 71.0)

Native Hawaiian and/or Pacific Islander

28.6 (3.7 - 71.0)

White

9.0 (6.4 - 12.3)

Other

20.0 (5.7 - 43.7)

9.5 (7.3 - 12.1) 13.1 (9.5 - 17.4) 8.5 (2.4 - 20.4) 12.1 (6.8 - 19.4)

International Yes

12.7 (9.2 - 16.8)

No

9.8 (7.7 - 12.3)

Living with a Disability Yes

10.2 (6.8 - 14.5)

No

11.1 (8.9 - 13.7)

First Generation to College Yes

15.1 (10.2 - 21.0)

No

9.7 (7.7 - 11.9)

Revised on 01/29/2021

17 of 20

Table 7: Potential policy support among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

around the USC community.

Proportion of students likely to support % (95% CI) Provide access to ​outdoor spaces​ for any students who meet the safety requirements (influenza immunization, required COVID-19 testing, symptom checks through Trojan Check, and upholding the Trojan Commitment by following COVID-19 prevention guidelines) to exercise, eat, and drink while remaining 6-feet apart from people not living in the same household.

83.3 (80.9 - 85.5)

68.6 (65.7 - 71.5)

Allow students who live in a crowded housing that may put them at higher risk of COVID-19 to move back to USC housing.

72.2 (69.4 - 75.0)

Mandate that every enrolled student must receive the COVID-19 vaccination before they are allowed back on campus.

66.3 (63.3 - 69.2)

Engage with students to provide feedback and influence the public health policies that affect the USC community.

84.4 (82.1 - 86.6)

Allow any students who meet all of the safety requirements to reserve and use ​indoor spaces on campus​ for study sessions, exercise, and other social interactions.

67.1 (64.1 - 69.9)

Ban all in-person gatherings in and around USC neighborhoods until every student has received the COVID-19 vaccination.

39.7 (36.7 - 42.7)

Allow students who meet all of the safety requirements to resume registered student organization activities and attend in-person gatherings on campus.

60.4 (57.3 - 63.4)

Create “social bubbles” in which the same group of students are allowed to have in-person interaction in the USC community as long as they do not interact in-person with anyone outside of their “social bubbles”.

54.4 (51.3 - 57.5)

Enforce sanctions against students who violate COVID-19 policies with fines and dismissal for repeat offenders to protect vulnerable members in and

63.1 (60.1 - 66.1)

Revised on 01/29/2021

Provide exemptions for students with mental health needs to access campus facilities and attend in-person gatherings on campus as long as they meet all of the safety requirements.

18 of 20

Table 8: Participation in risky COVID-related behaviors by wellbeing category among students living around UPC in Fall 2020​23 Students reporting risky COVID-related ​social behaviors % (95% CI)

Table 9: COVID-related attitudes by wellbeing category among students living around UPC in Fall 2020

I can socialize with friends and family without seeing them in-person. % (95% CI)

It is unrealistic to stay 6-feet apart from friends and family members when I see them in-person. % (95% CI)

Staying home and not meeting friends and family members during this pandemic is a sacrifice I can make to ensure a safe return to campus. % (95% CI)

Nothing that I do will make a difference since COVID-19 will continue to spread by other people in the USC area. % (95% CI)

High wellbeing

62.4 (56.9 67.7)

59.0 (53.4 - 64.4)

72.0 (66.8 76.9)

21.9 (17.5 26.8)

Moderate wellbeing

53.5 (48.2 58.8)

56.6 (51.3 - 61.8)

68.4 (63.2 73.2)

23.6 (19.2 28.4)

Low wellbeing

48.1 (42.9 53.3)

59.5 (54.3 - 64.5)

74.6 (69.8 79.0)

29.2 (24.6 34.1)

Students reporting risky COVID-related travel​ behaviors % (95% CI)

High wellbeing

49.6 (44.1 - 55.0)

37.4 (32.2 - 42.8)

Moderate wellbeing

57.1 (51.9 - 62.2)

40.8 (35.7 - 45.9)

Low wellbeing

52.8 (47.7 - 57.9)

38.9 (34.0 - 44.0)

23

Data for Tables 8 and 9 indicate the proportion of students in that given wellbeing category that meet the criteria in column headers Revised on 01/29/2021

19 of 20

Â

Provided by the USC Student Health - Office for Health Promotion Strategy, Backbone for the USC Well-being Collective wellbeingcollective@usc.edu | uscwellbeingcollective.usc.edu

Â