Next Article in Journal
Between Syndemics and Structural Exploitation: Health Barriers of Migrant Agricultural Workers
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Term Exposure to Ionizing Radiation from the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site and Risk of Cardiovascular Mortality
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 22
Issue 12
10.3390/ijerph22121782
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Communicating Community-Based Public Health Surveillance: Lessons from Profiling Public Risk Perceptions of COVID-19 Wastewater Monitoring

by
Youllee Kim
Department of Communication Studies, University of Denver, 298 Sturm Hall, 2000 E. Asbury Ave., Denver, CO 80208, USA
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(12), 1782; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22121782
Submission received: 10 October 2025 / Revised: 10 November 2025 / Accepted: 20 November 2025 / Published: 25 November 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

Wastewater monitoring is a well-established form of community-based public health surveillance technology that gained renewed attention during the COVID-19 pandemic as an early warning system for SARS-CoV-2 infection trends. For monitoring data to be effectively translated into public health action, however, communication strategies that address public risk perceptions and foster cooperation are essential. This study focuses on wastewater monitoring in the context of COVID-19 and provides an evidential basis for developing targeted public health messages by segmenting the population into risk perception profiles. A survey of 332 Colorado residents was analyzed using latent class analysis (LCA), revealing four profiles: the worrisome (48%), the practical (19%), the community-oriented (11%), and the minimally concerned (22%). LCA with covariate analysis showed that communal coping orientation, belief in misinformation, and attitudes and knowledge of wastewater monitoring, along with age, education, and political ideology, were associated with these profiles. Findings highlight how communication strategies for community-based public health surveillance can be tailored to different population subgroups.

1. Introduction

1.1. Communicating Community-Based Public Health Surveillance: Lessons from Wastewater Monitoring Risk Profiling

Wastewater monitoring, also referred to as wastewater-based epidemiology or wastewater surveillance, is a form of community-based public health surveillance that provides early warnings for health threats through non-invasive, anonymous community-level sampling from wastewater [1]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, wastewater surveillance offered critical insights when testing resources were scarce, enabling more proactive interventions [2,3]. Despite the promise of wastewater monitoring, the public’s understanding of this public health tool remains limited [4]. Moreover, health privacy violations and community stigmatization have been identified as potential risks shaping public acceptance of this surveillance tool [5,6]. To ensure wastewater monitoring and other community-based surveillance approaches are both effective and trusted, communication strategies must address public concerns about potential risks, such as privacy and data misuse, while emphasizing their public health benefits. This study adopts an exploratory, person-centered approach to identify distinct risk perception profiles related to wastewater monitoring for COVID-19—groups of individuals characterized by differing perceptions of the associated risks. By uncovering meaningful audience typologies, the study aims to inform the design of tailored communication strategies that bridge the gap between public health practice and public understanding, thereby supporting the broader integration of community-based health surveillance into public health communication.

1.2. Science and Utility of Wastewater Monitoring of Infectious Diseases

Wastewater monitoring has a long history in public health, dating back to the 1800s when it helped trace cholera outbreaks in London [7]. Over time, it expanded to detect pathogens like Salmonella typhi (which causes typhoid) and poliovirus [8,9], playing a key role in global polio eradication efforts since the 1970s [10]. More recently, it has been used to monitor population-level health trends and behaviors, such as disease transmission and drug use [2,11]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, wastewater surveillance emerged as a critical tool to track SARS-CoV-2, especially when clinical testing was limited by supply shortages and low public participation [12,13].
Detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater offers a time-sensitive, non-invasive, and less biased approach that supplements clinical diagnosis [14]. When infected, most people shed SARS-CoV-2 in their feces regardless of whether they are symptomatic or asymptomatic [15] and may begin shedding before any symptoms appear [16]. Since the samples are collected from wastewater treatment facilities and sewers, wastewater monitoring is a non-invasive method for tracking the occurrence and prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the population level [17]. As wastewater samples are taken from communal waste streams that draw from all contributing individuals with equal probability, wastewater monitoring of COVID-19 is also considered a less biased method that is independent of the population’s healthcare access or testing availability [18]. Wastewater monitoring is also well-suited for long-term surveillance, as clinical testing is resource-intensive, requiring significant investment in reagents, equipment, and personnel [19]. By contrast, wastewater monitoring can screen large populations with a single sample, making it a more cost-effective solution over time despite initial infrastructure costs [19].
Increasing episodes of epidemics and pandemics, including SARS-CoV-1, H1N1, MERS, Ebola, and SARS-CoV-2, have heightened the urgency for global public health agencies to enhance their disease surveillance capabilities [20]. In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have also developed a National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS), collaborating with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and other partners [21,22].
At the time of data collection (June–July 2023) for the current study, the United States had transitioned from emergency COVID-19 response to a long-term surveillance stage [21]. Wastewater monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 had been introduced nationwide through the NWSS but was still in various stages of implementation across states [23,24]. As wastewater monitoring programs continue, it is critical to ensure that the system remains adaptable, addressing not only ongoing challenges from infectious diseases such as COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), but also expanding to broader applications, including chronic conditions and drug use [25]. Importantly, long-term wastewater monitoring should be widely acceptable to the public, as public support facilitates the integration of this complementary surveillance system into long-term health infrastructure rather than limiting it to short-term crisis response. Public understanding of wastewater monitoring can also shape how individuals respond to public health policies derived from wastewater monitoring data. As uncertainties and associated risk perceptions play significant roles in determining public acceptance of technologies [26,27], the following section explores the public’s risk perceptions of wastewater monitoring.

1.3. Public’s Risk Perceptions of Wastewater Monitoring

Effective public health communication likely depends on its capacity to identify and predict how segments of the population differ in their risk beliefs about wastewater monitoring [28,29]. One possible risk perception involves uncertainty about the reliability of the wastewater monitoring technology. Although various scientific studies and guidelines have worked to establish methods for enhancing the accuracy and reliability of wastewater monitoring [2], many members of the public remain uncertain about the dependability of these new technologies. This uncertainty may also raise questions about the cost-effectiveness of wastewater monitoring. Given that the public is not generally exposed to wastewater monitoring in daily life [30], it is understandable that there may be a lack of trust or understanding. This unfamiliarity breeds uncertainty [31], which can amplify perceived risks. If people do not fully grasp how technology works or how data is collected and analyzed, they may worry about its potential inaccuracies or limitations.
Beyond concerns about technological reliability and cost-effectiveness, privacy is a significant issue for many individuals. Wastewater surveillance typically does not require informed consent when samples are collected from public infrastructure, as individuals are not identifiable and thus not directly harmed [6,32,33]. However, concerns may still arise over data ownership and access. When the purpose and scope of monitoring are not clearly communicated, fears about potential misuse or unauthorized access to health information may reduce public support. Worries also extend to the potential use of wastewater data for monitoring illegal activities, such as drug use [34,35]. Although ethical guidelines recommend using such data only for identifying population-level trends to inform public health policies [36], fears of individual surveillance—particularly by law enforcement—could undermine public trust and support [37].
Another concern is that wastewater monitoring data could stigmatize individuals or communities. Although individuals are not identifiable, such data may still lead to communities being unfairly labeled as sources of infection, fostering discrimination and social stigma [38]. This was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when higher infection rates in certain areas fueled racism, scapegoating, and unequal treatment [39,40]. Additionally, there might be concerns about how wastewater monitoring data could influence policy decisions at the community level [41]. For instance, drastic actions like business and school closures or the unequal distribution of resources were implemented during the pandemic [42], and similar measures could potentially be taken based on wastewater data. Addressing these risks through clear policy guidelines and safeguards is essential for sustaining wastewater monitoring as a trusted public health tool [6].

1.4. Profiles of Risk Perceptions and Their Covariates

This study employs Latent Class Analysis (LCA; [43]) to segment the public based on their risk perceptions of wastewater monitoring for COVID-19. As the first study to apply audience segmentation in this context, it uses LCA to identify homogeneous subgroups within a diverse population [44]. LCA is well-suited for this purpose for two key reasons. First, risk perceptions are multidimensional and interrelated [45,46]; segmenting audiences based on a single risk belief oversimplifies this complexity. LCA allows for classification based on multiple risk perceptions, capturing the complexity of public perceptions on wastewater monitoring. Second, LCA provides a means to examine population heterogeneity when existing theories do not clearly outline how to classify the audience based on relevant variables. Given this study’s exploratory nature in understanding public risk perceptions about wastewater monitoring for COVID-19, LCA can help identify the optimal number of subgroups that represent the population [43].
Research Question 1 (RQ 1): Is there a latent class structure that adequately represents the heterogeneity in the general public’s risk perceptions about wastewater monitoring of COVID-19?
Furthermore, LCA with covariates allows researchers to assess whether certain variables influence the likelihood of subgroup membership [29]. While prior studies have examined factors shaping concerns about wastewater monitoring, it remains unclear how these variables relate to the audience profiles identified in RQ1. Given that infectious diseases like COVID-19 pose both individual and collective health threats, people may differ in how they believe their communities should respond [47]. To explore this, the study includes communal coping orientation, defined as the extent to which individuals view the stressor as jointly owned and managed [48], as a potential covariate. Second, belief in COVID-19 misinformation is examined, as prior research suggests such beliefs can shape support for public health measures [49]. Third, knowledge about wastewater monitoring is included, given that public understanding of this method remains limited and may influence acceptance [4,5]. Finally, attitudes toward wastewater monitoring are assessed, as more favorable attitudes are associated with lower concern and greater support for its use in tracking COVID-19 [50].
Research question 2 (RQ2): Do communal coping orientation, misinformation beliefs, basic knowledge about wastewater monitoring, and attitudes toward wastewater monitoring relate to audience profiles of concern regarding wastewater monitoring of COVID-19?
Lastly, demographic factors may be critical for making decisions about which audience segment to target and through which means to target them.
Research question 3 (RQ3): Do demographic variables (i.e., age, education level, gender, race/ethnicity, and political ideology) relate to audience profiles of concerns about wastewater monitoring for COVID-19?

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedures

Upon receiving approval from the university’s institutional review board, participants were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (n = 174) and Prolific (n = 162). These are two widely used online crowdsourcing platforms that allow researchers to post studies, which participants voluntarily complete in exchange for monetary compensation [51,52]. The survey was conducted between 2 June and 1 July 2023, as part of a large project to understand the public perceptions of COVID-19 messaging and prevention measures in Colorado, United States. The state was chosen due to its strong commitment to sustainable surveillance and academic partnerships. Since August 2020, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has collaborated with academic and utility partners to develop a statewide wastewater surveillance system. Initially focused on COVID-19, the program has expanded to monitor other respiratory viruses, including influenza A/B, RSV, and enterovirus D68, with samples collected twice weekly and data regularly updated [53].
Participants first provided consent, confirmed their Colorado residency, and selected the wastewater utility area closest to their home. They then completed measures assessing how their community has been handling COVID-19 (i.e., communal coping orientation) and their belief in COVID-19 misinformation. Following this, they read an informational message about wastewater monitoring and responded to questions about risk perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes toward the practice. The survey concluded with sociodemographic items. The informational message provided to the participants and all survey items are included in the Supplementary Material S1. Participants received $6 for their time, with most completing the survey in under 30 min (M = 20.41, SD = 15.49). Eight individuals who failed an attention check and six who completed the survey in under five minutes were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 322 Colorado residents. Of the 67 listed utilities, participants identified 54 as serving or located near their residence. Table 1 reports detailed demographic information of the participants and compares that with 2023 U.S. Census Bureau data for Colorado [54,55,56,57].

2.2. Measurement

2.2.1. Latent Class Indicators

Participants’ concerns with wastewater monitoring for COVID-19 were assessed on 5-point scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and collapsed into two categories for the LCA. Responses of strongly disagree and somewhat disagree were coded as “not concerned,” whereas neither disagree nor agree, somewhat agree, and strongly agree were coded as “concerned or unsure.” The “unsure” category reflects participants who selected neither disagree nor agree. This coding approach treats those who strongly or somewhat disagreed as not very concerned about wastewater monitoring, while grouping all other responses as concerned or unsure. The decision to include “neither disagree nor agree” with the concerned category reflects the interpretation that uncertainty may indicate mixed attitudes or susceptibility to misinformation [58,59]. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for a total of eight latent class indicators. Detailed distributions of participants’ responses on the 5-point scales assessing concerns about wastewater monitoring for COVID-19 are provided in the Supplementary Material S2.

2.2.2. Covariates

All variables were based on 5-point scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and averaged, unless otherwise stated. Across items for covariates, there were a total of two missing observations. A missing observation for an individual on a given variable was replaced with the mean for non-missing observations for that variable [60]. A confirmatory factor analysis of multi-item scales—communal coping orientation, COVID-19 misinformation, and wastewater monitoring attitude—was estimated with maximum likelihood. All factors were allowed to covary, but errors were not. The model showed reasonable goodness of fit: χ2 (df = 127, N = 322) = 364.92, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.93, GFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.08.
Communal coping was assessed by asking participants to think about how they and their community have been handling COVID-19 (Adapted from [47,61]). Three items measured the appraisal dimensions (e.g., “When I think about COVID-19, I mostly think about how it is my community’s health issue that we face together), and the other three items measured the action dimension (e.g., “It is my community’s responsibility to prevent the spread of COVID-19”). As per [62], we created a composite score of communal coping by combining the appraisal and action items such that higher scores indicated stronger communal coping orientations for COVID-19 (α = 0.84).
COVID-19 misinformation beliefs were assessed with five items (e.g., “Coronavirus is probably a hoax”) adapted from [49]. Responses were averaged into one score such that higher scores indicated stronger COVID-19 misinformation beliefs (α = 0.89).
Knowledge about COVID-19 wastewater monitoring was measured with three true/false questions about the information presented in the message. Participants’ scores were calculated as the total number of correct responses. Because the items for knowledge were a series of fact-based true and false questions, it is inappropriate to use alpha as a measure of internal consistency.
Attitudes toward COVID-19 wastewater monitoring were measured with four items, including “I like the idea of COVID-19 monitoring in wastewater,” and “I think COVID-19 monitoring in wastewater is desirable.” Responses were averaged into one score such that higher scores indicated stronger positive attitudes toward COVID-19 wastewater monitoring (α = 0.96).
At the end of the survey, participants answered demographic questions, such as age, education level, gender, race/ethnicity, as well as political ideology.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

As shown in Table 2, over 70% of participants were concerned or unsure that wastewater monitoring for COVID-19 may not be cost-effective (73.3%) and may be used to support drastic measures such as shutting down businesses and schools (72%). More than 60% were concerned or unsure that wastewater monitoring may not provide accurate early warnings of potential COVID-19 outbreaks (68.3%), may contribute to inequitable resource allocation in responding to COVID-19 (68%), and may be used to imply that certain individuals or communities are responsible for spreading the virus (65.8%). Participants were least concerned about privacy invasion; nevertheless, more than half were concerned or unsure that wastewater monitoring may allow personal health information to be accessible to unauthorized entities (57.1%) or may be used to trace illegal drug use (56.2%).
On average, participants slightly leaned toward a communal coping orientation (M = 3.71, SD = 0.79). The mean level of COVID-19 misinformation belief was 2.36 (SD = 1.15) on a 1–5 scale, suggesting that participants generally tended to disagree with misinformation statements about COVID-19, though responses showed some variability. Most participants correctly answered at least two out of three questions assessing knowledge about wastewater monitoring for COVID-19 (M = 2.39, SD = 0.71). Attitudes toward COVID-19 wastewater monitoring were generally positive (M = 3.76, SD = 1.08).

3.2. Latent Class Analysis

RQ1 asked whether there exists a latent class structure that adequately represents the heterogeneity in the public’s concerns about COVID-19 wastewater monitoring. To address RQ1, PROC LCA was used in SAS 9.4 to calculate the fit indices for two- to seven-class models. Each test was run using 100 random starting values. LCA follows an iterative maximum likelihood estimation process, sequentially testing models with different numbers of classes to determine the best class structure [63]. No single model outperformed the others on all the estimated parameters, which is not uncommon [43]. Along with the fit statistics, parsimony, interpretability, and percentage of participants in each class were examined to guide model selection. The two- and three-class models did not fit the criteria of having a G2 value less than the degrees of freedom. The AIC estimates were minimized at the seven-class model, whereas the BIC and adjusted BIC estimates were minimized at the four-class model. The four-class model was selected considering that the BIC estimating procedure emphasizes parsimony [43].
In addition to evaluating model fit, classification diagnostics need to be examined. Generally, higher entropy values are preferred, with values above 0.80 considered acceptable [64]. The average latent class posterior probability indicates how accurately the model assigns individuals to their most likely class, with values greater than 0.90 reflecting ideal classification quality [65]. Although recommendations regarding class size and proportion have become more flexible, it has been recommended that each class contains at least 50 individuals and represents no less than 5% of the total sample [65]. The four-class model also had higher entropy values and higher average latent class posterior probability than the seven-class model. The smallest class in the four-class model included 57 individuals, representing 11.37% of the total sample (See Table 3).
Table 4 shows the item-response probabilities for the four-class model and the likelihood of reporting risk perceptions about wastewater monitoring for COVID-19 within a class (i.e., the responses coded as 2 in Table 2). The four models were labeled as the worrisome (48%), the minimally concerned (22%), the practical (19%), and the community-oriented group (11%) based on the distinctive features of the concerns shared by the group. The percentages in parentheses represent the estimated proportion of participants most likely belonging to each class.

3.3. Covariate Analysis

RQ2 explored whether communal coping orientation for COVID-19, COVID-19 misinformation belief, and attitude toward, as well as knowledge of wastewater monitoring for COVID-19, relate to membership in the classes of risk beliefs about wastewater monitoring for COVID-19. All of the covariates were statistically significantly associated with class membership at p < 0.05.
RQ3 explored whether demographic variables were related to membership in the latent classes of risk beliefs about wastewater monitoring for COVID-19. Covariates included age (measured in years), education (ranging from 1 = less than high school to 6 = graduate degree), gender (1 = female, 0 = non-female), race (1 = White, 0 = non-White), and political ideology (1 = extremely liberal to 5 = extremely conservative). Of these variables, age, education, and political ideology showed statistically significant associations at p < 0.05.
Table 5 shows the results of the covariate analysis, with the minimally concerned as the referent class. Of note, although several covariates showed statistically significant effects, the confidence intervals for some estimates overlapped across groups, indicating that the differences among the practical, community-oriented, and worrisome groups were not always statistically distinct. This pattern suggests that while the covariates meaningfully distinguish the minimally concerned group from the other classes, comparisons among the remaining groups should be interpreted with caution.

4. Discussion

This study explored risk perception profiles related to wastewater monitoring for COVID-19 and examined covariates associated with those profiles. Through latent class analysis (LCA), we identified four distinct risk profiles, each reflecting a different pattern of concerns about this health surveillance technology. These profiles provide an evidential basis for tailoring communication strategies, ensuring that public health messages can address the specific concerns of different population subgroups. Beyond wastewater monitoring, the findings highlight how audience segmentation can inform other community-based health surveillance initiatives, where effectiveness depends not only on technical performance but also on public trust.
The worrisome group (48%) showed high concerns across all risks, including cost, privacy, and stigma. Communication strategies targeting this group should address these issues comprehensively rather than in isolation, emphasizing transparency, fairness, and ethical safeguards. Importantly, these concerns are not unique to wastewater monitoring, but mirror challenges faced in other community-based health surveillance initiatives, underscoring the need for trust-building communication across surveillance contexts.
The practical group (19%) was mainly concerned about the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of wastewater monitoring as well as the possible inequitable resource allocation based on the monitoring data. As highlighted in several studies (e.g., [32,53]), effective communication about community-based health surveillance must address both the technical foundations and the ethical use of data in public health decision-making. The present study extends this work by showing that such concerns are especially salient for the practical group.
The community-oriented group (11%) showed concerns about the potential consequences of wastewater monitoring data on the communities, such as stigmatization, discrimination, and potential misuse (e.g., tracing illicit drug use). Communication strategies tailored to this group should therefore emphasize the ethical boundaries of wastewater monitoring, community protection against misuse, and safeguards to ensure that surveillance serves public health without reinforcing stigma or inequities.
The minimally concerned group (22%) did not show any particular concern toward wastewater monitoring of COVID-19. A key communication challenge with this group is that individuals with low-risk beliefs are often the least motivated to seek information and acquire new knowledge [66]. When targeting the minimally concerned group, the interventions should make sure that a low level of concern does not translate into indifference or disengagement from public health surveillance.
All of the psychological factors (i.e., communal coping orientation for COVID-19, COVID-19 misinformation belief, and attitude toward as well as knowledge of wastewater monitoring for COVID-19) proposed in RQ2 were statistically significant covariates of class membership. Individuals with a stronger communal coping orientation were more likely to be in the minimally concerned group than in the practical group. While decisions about message framing should be made cautiously and aligned with broader research evidence, these findings suggest that public health campaigns may benefit from emphasizing communal responsibility and shared benefits to address public concerns and sustain engagement with community-based public health surveillance. Individuals with stronger COVID-19 misinformation beliefs were more likely to be in the community-oriented and worrisome groups than the minimally concerned group. Although correcting misinformation is inherently challenging—particularly in the context of infectious diseases, where beliefs tend to be especially resistant to change [49,67]—researchers have proposed several strategies. One such approach involves reframing public health messages to shift focus away from human causes of infection and instead emphasize pathogens as the primary threat, using linguistic agency [67]. For example, ref. [68] demonstrated that when health messages assign agency to viruses and vaccines rather than to humans, the virus is perceived as more serious and the vaccine as more effective. In light of this, public health messages could assign linguistic agency to viruses (e.g., COVID-19 affects millions of people) instead of humans (e.g., “Millions of people contract COVID-19”) to increase perceived severity of COVID-19. Additionally, public health messaging may benefit from attributing agency to the intervention itself (e.g., “COVID-19 wastewater monitoring data can guard people”) rather than to individuals (e.g., “People can guard themselves using COVID-19 wastewater monitoring data”) to enhance the perceived effectiveness of the community-based public health surveillance.
Higher knowledge was associated with lower odds of belonging to the worrisome or community-oriented groups compared to the minimally concerned group, suggesting the importance of incorporating educational content into public health messaging to enhance public understanding of how community-based public health surveillance works and to proactively address common misconceptions. Furthermore, positive attitudes toward wastewater monitoring were also significantly associated with class membership: in comparison to those in the minimally concerned group, participants who reported higher positive attitudes toward wastewater monitoring for COVID-19 had lower odds of being in the practical, the community-oriented, and the worrisome groups. Having minimal concern about wastewater monitoring is not problematic. However, low concern combined with low positive attitudes may reduce support. Building on the findings related to the communal coping orientation, the minimally concerned group could be targeted with messages that frame public health threats as shared challenges requiring collective action, while also emphasizing how community-based surveillance tools such as wastewater monitoring can help communities respond effectively.
Demographic factors also mattered. Older participants had lower odds of belonging to the worrisome group compared to the minimally concerned group, indicating that communication efforts directed toward older populations could focus on addressing any lingering uncertainties. Education lowered the odds of belonging to the practical group relative to the minimally concerned group, suggesting those with less education may question the effectiveness of surveillance tools. Communication for this population should be clear and accessible, explaining how wastewater monitoring works, why it is cost-effective, and addressing fairness concerns. A conservative political orientation increased the likelihood of membership in the practical and worrisome groups, suggesting that communication strategies should focus on enhancing trust and acceptance by emphasizing tangible benefits, transparency in government decision-making, and privacy protections.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Interpretation of the findings should be considered in relation to the strengths and weaknesses of the study design. First, it is important to note that this study focused on public perceptions of wastewater monitoring for COVID-19. Public perceptions of wastewater monitoring may vary depending on factors such as the perceived severity, transmissibility, and familiarity of a disease; therefore, respondents’ risk perceptions in this study may not fully generalize to the use of wastewater monitoring for other purposes and may depend on the specific health context. Despite this limitation, the methodological approach and findings provide valuable insights that can inform future research on public perceptions toward wastewater monitoring for other infectious diseases.
Second, while the eight latent class indicators capture key aspects of public concern, they are not all-encompassing. In line with efforts to expand wastewater monitoring for COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, it is essential to examine additional concerns—such as mistrust in government (e.g., [69])—and psychological barriers, particularly affective barriers (e.g., [46]), that may contribute to public reluctance to support wastewater monitoring. Relatedly, the present study dichotomized response items (1–2 not concerned vs. 3–5 concerned) to identify patterns of concern regarding COVID-19 wastewater monitoring. Although this approach enhances interpretability, we acknowledge that it may limit the granularity of attitudinal variation. We also note our decision to include a no-opinion response option (i.e., “neither disagree nor agree”) in the analysis. While such options can prevent forced responses and capture uncertainty, research suggests they may also discourage respondents from fully engaging in the cognitive effort needed to report their true opinions [58]. By grouping “neither disagree nor agree” responses with those expressing concern, this study aimed to capture the possibility that uncertainty reflects mixed attitudes or susceptibility to misinformation [59]. Nevertheless, future research should examine how neutral responses relate to underlying uncertainty and whether alternative survey designs (e.g., excluding no-opinion options) could further improve data quality and interpretability.
Third, platforms like Amazon MTurk and Prolific often underrepresent lower-income and less-educated individuals due to barriers like limited internet access and digital literacy [70]. Although the study sample included a diverse range of participants, it was not fully representative of Colorado’s demographic composition. Certain racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Hispanic/Latino and Black/African American) were underrepresented, while individuals with higher education levels were overrepresented. The study sample also included fewer high-income individuals compared to the state population. These limitations warrant caution in generalizing the findings and highlight the need for alternative or complementary recruitment strategies to enhance representativeness. The sample’s restriction to Colorado residents further limits generalizability. While the study offers valuable insights into public concerns about COVID-19 wastewater monitoring, future research using a nationally representative sample is needed to confirm broader applicability.
Lastly, due to the choice of a cross-sectional design, this study’s findings provide only a snapshot of a dynamic process. One way to address this limitation in future research is to employ a longitudinal design (e.g., latent transition analysis; [71]) that measures the indicators and predictors of audience profiles at multiple time points. Future research could also examine whether changes in covariates, such as knowledge of COVID-19 wastewater monitoring, correspond with shifts in audience profiles of concern over time.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the risk perception profiles and associated factors linked to different audience segments regarding wastewater monitoring for COVID-19. The identification of four distinct groups—the worrisome, the practical, the community-oriented, and the minimally concerned—emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of public attitudes toward health surveillance technologies. Covariate analysis revealed that communal coping orientation, attitudes toward monitoring, misinformation beliefs, and knowledge levels were significantly associated with profile membership, offering strategic entry points for tailored communication efforts. Additionally, demographic characteristics such as age, education, and political ideology further underscore the importance of nuanced approaches to message design. Together, these findings provide valuable insights for developing targeted public health communication strategies that enhance understanding and acceptance of health surveillance technologies, ultimately supporting efforts to promote public health.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph22121782/s1. Supplementary Material S1: Informative message about wastewater monitoring and survey items; Supplementary Material S2: Distribution of participant responses to concerns with wastewater monitoring for COVID-19.

Funding

This article was funded by the Colorado National Wastewater Surveillance System Center of Excellence, which is supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Disease Cooperative Agreement through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Grant No. NU50CK000552). The APC was funded by the University of Denver’s Open Access Publication Equity Fund.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study reported has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at University of Denver (protocol number 2061013-2, approved on 23 May 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the partnership with the Colorado National Wastewater Surveillance System Center of Excellence and the support from the University of Denver in preparing this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Byambasuren, O.; Cardona, M.; Bell, K.; Clark, J.; McLaws, M.L.; Glasziou, P. Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Off. J. Assoc. Med. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. Can. 2020, 5, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Daughton, C.G. Wastewater surveillance for population-wide COVID-19: The present and future. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 736, 139631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. World Health Organization. Environmental Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 to Complement Public Health Surveillance—Interim Guidance. 2022. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HEP-ECH-WSH-2022.1 (accessed on 30 March 2025).
  4. LaJoie, A.S.; Holm, R.H.; Anderson, L.B.; Ness, H.D.; Smith, T. Nationwide public perceptions regarding the acceptance of using wastewater for community health monitoring in the United States. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0275075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Holm, R.H.; Brick, J.M.; Amraotkar, A.R.; Hart, J.L.; Mukherjee, A.; Zeigler, J.; Bushau-Sprinkle, A.M.; Anderson, L.B.; Walker, K.L.; Smith, T.R.; et al. Public awareness and support for use of wastewater for SARS-CoV-2 monitoring: A community survey in Louisville, Kentucky. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 2, 1891–1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hrudey, S.E.; Silva, D.S.; Shelley, J.; Pons, W.; Isaac-Renton, J.; Chik, A.H.S.; Conant, B. Ethics guidance for environmental scientists engaged in surveillance of wastewater for SARS-CoV-2. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 8484–8491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Johnson, S. The Ghost Map: The Story of London’s Most Terrifying Epidemic—And How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World; Penguin: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kilaru, P.; Hill, D.; Anderson, K.; Collins, M.B.; Green, H.; Kmush, B.L.; Larsen, D.A. Wastewater surveillance for infectious disease: A systematic review. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2023, 192, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Paul, J.R.; Trask, J.D.; Gard, S. II. Poliomyelitic virus in urban sewage. J. Exp. Med. 1940, 71, 765–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Asghar, H.; Diop, O.M.; Weldegebriel, G.; Malik, F.; Shetty, S.; Bassioni, L.E.; Akande, A.O.; Maamoun, E.A.; Zaidi, S.; Lowther, S.A.; et al. Environmental surveillance for polioviruses in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. J. Infect. Dis. 2014, 210 (Suppl. S1), S294–S303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Castiglioni, S.; Thomas, K.V.; Kasprzyk-Hordern, B.; Vandam, L.; Griffiths, P. Testing wastewater to detect illicit drugs: State of the art, potential and research needs. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 487, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Annan, J.; Henderson, R.; Gray, M.; Clark, R.G.; Sarin, C.; Black, K. A review of wastewater-based epidemiology for the SARS-CoV-2 virus in rural, remote, and resource-constrained settings internationally: Insights for implementation, research, and policy for first nations in Canada. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Embrett, M.; Sim, S.M.; Caldwell, H.A.T.; Boulos, L.; Yu, Z.; Agarwal, G.; Cooper, R.; Aj, A.J.G.; Bielska, I.A.; Chishtie, J.; et al. Barriers to and strategies to address COVID-19 testing hesitancy: A rapid scoping review. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, Y.; Liu, P.; Zhang, H.; Ibaraki, M.; VanTassell, J.; Geith, K.; Cavallo, M.; Kann, R.; Saber, L.; Kraft, C.S.; et al. Early warning of a COVID-19 surge on a university campus based on wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 at residence halls. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 821, 153291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, C.; Gao, G.; Xu, Y.; Pu, L.; Wang, Q.; Wang, L.; Wang, W.; Song, Y.; Chen, M.; Wang, L.; et al. SARS-CoV-2–positive sputum and feces after conversion of pharyngeal samples in patients with COVID-19. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020, 172, 832–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, F.; Lee, W.L.; Chen, H.; Gu, X.; Chandra, F.; Armas, F.; Xiao, A.; Leifels, M.; Rhode, S.F.; Wuertz, S.; et al. Making waves: Wastewater surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in an endemic future. Water Res. 2022, 219, 118535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wong, J.C.C.; Tan, J.; Lim, Y.X.; Arivalan, S.; Hapuarachchi, H.C.; Mailepessov, D.; Griffiths, J.; Jayarajah, P.; Setoh, Y.X.; Tien, W.P.; et al. Non-intrusive wastewater surveillance for monitoring of a residential building for COVID-19 cases. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 786, 147419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Polo, D.; Quintela-Baluja, M.; Corbishley, A.; Jones, D.L.; Singer, A.C.; Graham, D.W.; Romalde, J.L. Making waves: Wastewater-based epidemiology for COVID-19–approaches and challenges for surveillance and prediction. Water Res. 2020, 186, 116404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Wu, Y.; Guo, C.; Tang, L.; Hong, Z.; Zhou, J.; Dong, X.; Yin, H.; Xiao, Q.; Tang, Y.; Qu, X.; et al. Prolonged presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in faecal samples. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 5, 434–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Onifade, T.T. Risk analysis versus risk governance: The case study of the Ebola Virus Disease. J. Risk Res. 2023, 26, 625–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID Data Tracker_Wastewater Surveillance. 2024. Available online: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#wastewater-surveillance (accessed on 30 March 2025).
  22. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Wastewater-Based Disease Surveillance for Public Health Action. 2023. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK591705/ (accessed on 30 March 2025).
  23. Adams, C.; Bias, M.; Welsh, R.M.; Webb, J.; Reese, H.; Delgado, S.; Person, J.; West, R.; Shin, S.; Kirby, A. The national wastewater surveillance system (NWSS): From inception to widespread coverage, 2020–2022, United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 924, 171566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Schenk, H.; Rauch, W.; Zulli, A.; Boehm, A.B. SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in US wastewater: Leading indicators and data variability analysis in 2023–2024. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0313927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Toribio-Avedillo, D.; Gómez-Gómez, C.; Sala-Comorera, L.; Rodríguez-Rubio, L.; Carcereny, A.; García-Pedemonte, D.; Pintó, R.M.; Guix, S.; Galofré, B.; Bosch, A.; et al. Monitoring influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in wastewater. Beyond COVID-19. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 892, 164495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. van Rooyen, M.; Van der Lingen, E. Reducing uncertainty associated with managing technology innovation. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2024, 9, 100771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yoo, W.; Yu, E.; Jung, J. Drone delivery: Factors affecting the public’s attitude and intention to adopt. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1687–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Slater, M.D. Theory and method in health audience segmentation. J. Health Commun. 1996, 1, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Smith, R.A. Audience segmentation techniques. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication: Health and Risk Message Design and Processing; Parrott, R.L., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Digmayer, C.; Jakobs, E.M. Risk perception of complex technology innovations: Perspectives of experts and laymen. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), Austin, TX, USA, 2–5 October 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bowes, D.A.; Darling, A.; Driver, E.M.; Kaya, D.; Maal-Bared, R.; Lee, L.M.; Goodman, K.; Adhikari, S.; Aggarwal, S.; Bivins, A.; et al. Structured ethical review for wastewater-based testing in support of public health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 12969–12980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Klingler, C.; Silva, D.S.; Schuermann, C.; Reis, A.A.; Saxena, A.; Strech, D. Ethical issues in public health surveillance: A systematic qualitative review. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nainani, D.; Ng, W.J.; Wuertz, S.; Thompson, J.R. Balancing public health and group privacy: Ethics, rights, and obligations for wastewater surveillance systems. Water Res. 2024, 258, 121756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tomsone, L.E.; Neilands, R.; Kokina, K.; Bartkevics, V.; Pugajeva, I. Pharmaceutical and recreational drug usage patterns during and post COVID-19 determined by wastewater-based epidemiology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2024, 21, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hall, W.; Prichard, J.; Kirkbride, P.; Bruno, R.; Thai, P.K.; Gartner, C.; Lai, F.Y.; Ort, C.; Mueller, J.F. An analysis of ethical issues in using wastewater analysis to monitor illicit drug use. Addiction 2012, 107, 1767–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Prichard, J.; Hall, W.; de Voogt, P.; Zuccato, E. Sewage epidemiology and illicit drug research: The development of ethical research guidelines. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 472, 550–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Thompson, J.R.; Nancharaiah, Y.V.; Gu, X.; Lee, W.L.; Rajal, V.B.; Haines, M.B.; Girones, R.; Ng, L.C.; Alm, E.J.; Wuertz, S. Making waves: Wastewater surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 for population-based health management. Water Res. 2020, 184, 116181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Brown, P.; Zinn, J. COVID-19, pandemic risk and inequality: Emerging social science insights at 24 months. Health Risk Soc. 2021, 23, 273–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zalla, L.C.; Martin, C.L.; Edwards, J.K.; Gartner, D.R.; Noppert, G.A. A geography of risk: Structural racism and coronavirus disease 2019 mortality in the United States. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2021, 190, 1439–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Gable, L.; Ram, N.; Ram, J.L. Legal and ethical implications of wastewater monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 for COVID-19 surveillance. J. Law Biosci. 2020, 7, lsaa039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vernengo, M.; Nabar-Bhaduri, S. The economic consequences of COVID-19: The great shutdown and the rethinking of economic policy. Int. J. Political Econ. 2020, 49, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Collins, L.M.; Lanza, S.T. Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lanza, S.T.; Rhoades, B.L. Latent class analysis: An alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prev. Sci. 2013, 14, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fischhoff, B. Risk perception and communication. In Oxford Textbook of Global Public Health; Roger, D., Robert, B., Mary Ann, L., Martin, G., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 940–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Johnson, B.B.; Kay, C.S. Affect mediates culture’s effects on COVID-19 risk perceptions, behavioral intentions, and policy support among Americans. Health Risk Soc. 2025, 27, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kim, Y.; Tian, X.; Solomon, D.H. Coping with COVID-19 at the community level: Testing the predictors and outcomes of communal coping. J. Community Psychol. 2022, 50, 2790–2807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Afifi, T.D.; Basinger, E.D.; Kam, J.A. The extended theoretical model of communal coping: Understanding the properties and functionality of communal coping. J. Commun. 2020, 70, 424–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hornik, R.; Kikut, A.; Jesch, E.; Woko, C.; Siegel, L.; Kim, K. Association of COVID-19 misinformation with face mask wearing and social distancing in a nationally representative US sample. Health Commun. 2021, 36, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marsh, K.L.; Wallace, H.M. The influence of attitudes on beliefs: Formation and change. In Handbook of Attitudes; Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 369–395. [Google Scholar]
  51. Aguinis, H.; Villamor, I.; Ramani, R.S. MTurk research: Review and recommendations. J. Manag. 2021, 47, 823–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Palan, S.; Schitter, C. Prolific. ac—A subject pool for online experiments. J. Behav. Exp. Financ. 2018, 17, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. McClary-Gutierrez, J.S.; Mattioli, M.C.; Marcenac, P.; Silverman, A.I.; Boehm, A.B.; Bibby, K.; Balliet, M.; Reyes, F.L.d.L.; Gerrity, D.; Griffith, J.F.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 wastewater surveillance for public health action. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2021, 27, e210753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. U.S. Census Bureau. Colorado QuickFacts; U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available online: https://data.census.gov/all?q=colorado (accessed on 30 March 2025).
  55. U.S. Census Bureau. Educational Attainment: Colorado; Table S1501, ACS 1-Year Estimates; U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available online: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2023.S1501?q=%22S1501:+Educational+Attainment+Colorado (accessed on 30 March 2025).
  56. U.S. Census Bureau. Income in the Past 12 Months: Colorado; Table S1901, ACS 1-Year Estimates; U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available online: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2023.S1901?g=040XX00US08 (accessed on 30 March 2025).
  57. U.S. Census Bureau. ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: Colorado; Table DP05, ACS 1-Year Estimates; U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available online: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP1Y2023.DP05?q=DP05:+ACS+Demographic+and+Housing+Estimates+Colorado (accessed on 30 March 2025).
  58. Krosnick, J.A.; Holbrook, A.L.; Berent, M.K.; Carson, R.T.; Hanemann, W.M.; Kopp, R.J.; Mitchell, R.C.; Presser, S.; Ruud, P.A.; Smith, V.K.; et al. The impact of “no opinion” response options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public. Opin. Q. 2002, 66, 371–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lee, T.; Koo, G.H. What drives belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories? Examining the role of uncertainty, negative emotions, and perceived relevance and threat. Health Commun. 2023, 38, 3091–3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Graham, J.W. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009, 60, 549–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Basinger, E.D. Testing a dimensional versus a typological approach to the communal coping model in the context of type 2 diabetes. Health Commun. 2019, 35, 585–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Helgeson, V.S.; Jakubiak, B.; Van Vleet, M.; Zajdel, M. Communal coping and adjustment to chronic illness: Theory update and evidence. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2018, 22, 170–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Weller, B.E.; Bowen, N.K.; Faubert, S.J. Latent class analysis: A guide to best practice. J. Black Psychol. 2020, 46, 287–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Celeux, G.; Soromenho, G. An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. J. Classif. 1996, 13, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Muthén, B.O.; Muthén, L.K. Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 2000, 24, 882–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rimal, R.N.; Real, K. Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Hum. Commun. Res. 2003, 29, 370–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Smith, R.A.; Myrick, J.G.; Lennon, R.P.; Martin, M.A.; Small, M.L.; Van Scoy, L.J.; The Data4 Action Research Group. Exploring behavioral typologies to inform COVID-19 health campaigns: A person-centered approach. J. Health Commun. 2021, 26, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Bell, R.A.; McGlone, M.S.; Dragojevic, M. Vicious viruses and vigilant vaccines: Effects of linguistic agency assignment in health policy advocacy. J. Health Commun. 2014, 19, 1178–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Williams, L.; Craig, L.S.; Peacock, E.; Fields, T.; Al-Dahir, S.; Hawkins, F.; Gillard, C.; Singleton, B.; Theall, K.; Wilson, M.; et al. Exploring the roles of trust, attitudes, and motivations in COVID-19 decision-making and vaccination likelihood: Insights from the Louisiana Community Engagement Alliance (LA-CEAL) Community—Academic—Public Health—Practice (CAPP) Partnership. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 22, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Newman, A.; Bavik, Y.L.; Mount, M.; Shao, B. Data collection via online platforms: Challenges and recommendations for future research. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 70, 1380–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chung, H.; Lanza, S.T.; Loken, E. Latent transition analysis: Inference and estimation. Stat. Med. 2008, 27, 1834–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Demographic information of the participants (N = 322).
Table 1. Demographic information of the participants (N = 322).
Study ParticipantsColorado Residents
Variable%
Sex
     Female50.049.4
Ethnicity *
     White83.184.5
     Black or African American3.35.8
     Asian4.25.1
     Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin6.622.7
     American Indian or Alaska native3.33.5
     Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander0.90.4
     Some other race, ethnicity, or origin2.116.7
Education
     Eighth grade or less0.34.6
     Some high school or less1.05.6
     Graduated high school20.744.8
     Associate’s degree8.98.8
     Bachelor’s degree48.721.8
     Graduate or professional degree20.414.3
Income
     Less than $35,00017.616.7
     $35,000 to less than $50,00014.78.5
     $50,000 to less than $75,00028.815.1
     $75,000 to less than $100,00017.313.0
     Over $100,00021.746.8
Note. * These values sum to more than 100% because the categories are not mutually exclusive.
Table 2. Risk perceptions about wastewater monitoring for COVID-19: Indicators for latent class analysis (N = 322).
Table 2. Risk perceptions about wastewater monitoring for COVID-19: Indicators for latent class analysis (N = 322).
Indicators (I Am Concerned That Wastewater Monitoring…)CodeLabeln%
1. may not provide accurate early warnings of potential COVID-19 outbreaks.1Not concerned10231.7
2Concerned or Unsure22068.3
2. may not be cost-effective1Not concerned8626.7
2Concerned or Unsure23673.3
3. may be used to support drastic measures such as shutting down businesses and schools.1Not concerned9028
2Concerned or Unsure23272
4. may be used to imply that certain individuals or communities are responsible for spreading the coronavirus.1Not concerned11034.2
2Concerned or Unsure21265.8
5. may contribute to inequitable resource allocation in coping with COVID-19.1Not concerned10332
2Concerned or Unsure21968
6. may contribute to stigmatizing certain individuals or communities.1Not concerned11234.8
2Concerned or Unsure21065.2
7. may let my health information be readily available to people/organizations unauthorized to view or work with the data1Not concerned13842.9
2Concerned or Unsure18457.1
8. may be used to trace the use of illegal materials, such as opioids and other drugs.1Not concerned14143.8
2Concerned or Unsure18156.2
Table 3. Model fit and diagnostic information for comparison of latent class models.
Table 3. Model fit and diagnostic information for comparison of latent class models.
Model Fit Criteria
Number of ClassesLLG2dfAICBICAdjusted BIC
2−1287.35301.74238335.74399.91345.99
3−1256.10239.24229291.24389.38306.91
4−1239.23205.51220275.51407.62296.60
5−1229.97187211275.00441.08301.51
6−1221.42172.09202278.09478.14310.03
7−1211.07149.20193273.20507.22310.56
Diagnostic criteria
Number of classesSmallest class count (n)Smallest class size (%)EntropyAverage latent class posterior probability
213441.560.870.96
37122.110.780.90
45711.370.810.90
5267.920.770.87
6154.650.760.88
7175.310.790.85
Table 4. Item-response probabilities for a four-class model given latent class membership.
Table 4. Item-response probabilities for a four-class model given latent class membership.
I Am Concerned That Wastewater Monitoring…Minimally
Concerned
(22%)		Practical
(19%)		Community
-Oriented
(11%)		Worrisome
(48%)
1. may not provide accurate early warnings of potential COVID-19 outbreaks.0.230.730.330.96
(0.06)(0.10)(0.11)(0.02)
2. may not be cost-effective0.31 0.990.19 0.96
(0.08)(0.04)(0.23)(0.02)
3. may be used to support drastic measures such as shutting down businesses and schools.0.31 0.640.650.96
(0.06)(0.09)(0.10)(0.02)
4. may be used to imply that certain individuals or communities are responsible for spreading the coronavirus.0.16 0.39 0.790.97
(0.06)(0.10)(0.11)(0.02)
5. may contribute to inequitable resource allocation in coping with COVID-19.0.07 0.700.660.96
(0.04)(0.10)(0.12)(0.02)
6. may contribute to stigmatizing certain individuals or communities.0.10 0.420.850.96
(0.05)(0.11)(0.09)(0.02)
7. may let my health information be readily available to people/organizations0.07 0.29 0.48 0.94
(0.04)(0.09)(0.11)(0.02)
8. may be used to trace the use of illegal materials, such as opioids and other drugs.0.090.310.580.88
(0.05)(0.08)(0.11)(0.03)
Notes. Percentages reflect the number of participants likely to be in each profile. Cells contain the likelihood of being concerned or unsure of the given risk perception. Likelihoods greater than 50% appear in bold.
Table 5. Covariate analysis with the minimally concerned as the reference group.
Table 5. Covariate analysis with the minimally concerned as the reference group.
PracticalCommunity-OrientedWorrisome
OR95% CIpOR95% CIpOR95% CIp
Model 1
Communal coping 0.14[0.03, 0.64]0.0110.43[0.10, 1.79]0.2470.37[0.07, 1.83]0.221
COVID-19 misinfo3.38[0.74, 15.44]0.1167.93[1.75, 5.96]0.00784.83[4.35, 1654.3]0.003
WW knowledge3.37[0.067, 2.080]0.2610.18[0.04, 0.91]0.0380.07[0.01, 0.53]0.010
WW attitude0.16[0.041, 0.632]0.0090.07[0.02, 0.30]<0.0010.16[0.03, 0.97]0.046
Model 2
Age0.98[0.946, 1.022]0.3931.00[0.97, 1.04]0.8020.96[0.93, 0.98]0.003
Education0.55[0.331, 0.929]0.0251.11[0.72, 1.73]0.6330.98[0.69, 1.38]0.894
Gender0.64[0.195, 2.112]0.4651.14[0.50, 2.61]0.7620.85[0.42, 1.74]0.665
White4.48[0.43, 48.47]0.2170.71[0.18, 2.74]0.6160.53[0.17, 1.59]0.257
Political ideology2.40[1.46, 3.96]<0.0011.05[0.69, 1.62]0.8122.89[1.99, 4.18]<0.001
Note. The table reflects the relation between each covariate and the probability of latent class membership (e.g., odds) versus membership in the minimal concerns group. OR = Odds ratio; WW = Wastewater monitoring.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, Y. Communicating Community-Based Public Health Surveillance: Lessons from Profiling Public Risk Perceptions of COVID-19 Wastewater Monitoring. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 1782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22121782

AMA Style

Kim Y. Communicating Community-Based Public Health Surveillance: Lessons from Profiling Public Risk Perceptions of COVID-19 Wastewater Monitoring. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025; 22(12):1782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22121782

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Youllee. 2025. "Communicating Community-Based Public Health Surveillance: Lessons from Profiling Public Risk Perceptions of COVID-19 Wastewater Monitoring" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 22, no. 12: 1782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22121782

APA Style

Kim, Y. (2025). Communicating Community-Based Public Health Surveillance: Lessons from Profiling Public Risk Perceptions of COVID-19 Wastewater Monitoring. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(12), 1782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22121782

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop