Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jan 14;17(1):e0262301. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262301

Financial vulnerability and the impact of COVID-19 on American households

Carol Bruce 1,#, Maeve E Gearing 1,*,#, Jill DeMatteis 1,‡, Kerry Levin 1,‡, Timothy Mulcahy 1,‡, Jocelyn Newsome 1,‡, Jonathan Wivagg 1,‡
Editor: Ali B Mahmoud2
PMCID: PMC8759691  PMID: 35030175

Abstract

In May 2020, Westat, in partnership with Stanford University School of Medicine, conducted a nationally-representative household survey of American attitudes and behaviors regarding COVID-19. In this article, we examine what the Coronavirus Attitudes and Behaviors Survey tells us about the impact of COVID-19 on financial status and how this impact varies by demographic characteristics, the presence of health risk factors, and financial status (including employment factors). The survey reveals significant inequality in financial impact, as those who were most financially vulnerable prior to the pandemic found themselves under greater financial strain, while those who were more financially secure have experienced a neutral or even positive impact of the pandemic on household finances. These findings have important implications for public policy as policymakers seek to target aid to those who need it most.

Introduction

The 2020 pandemic of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has had a pervasive impact on almost all aspects of life, including the ability of individuals and households to financially support themselves. During February and March 2020, the total number of hours worked fell by 60 percent, driven by layoffs from employment and closure of businesses [1]. Hours worked increased in mid-April 2020, leveling off at 25 percent below the January 2020 baseline, and remaining at 35 to 30 percent below baseline through August 2020 [2].

Lower-income households with children experienced loss of income disproportionately [3–7]. The U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey in July 2020 showed that more than 60 percent of low-income households with children experienced an income shock due to COVID-19, resulting in food insecurity and difficulty paying bills [2, 3]. Food insecurity in households with children rose in July 2020 to 32 percent, more than double rates measured in 2018 [2]. Larger households are most vulnerable to falling behind on household finances due to COVID-19, with each child in a household increasing the likelihood of financial delinquency by an additional 17 percent [5].

Hispanic and Black households also report disproportionate loss of income from the pandemic. Approximately 70 percent of Hispanic household heads reported experiencing an income shock during the pandemic, as of July 2020, compared to 60 percent of Black households and 50 percent of non-Hispanic White households [2]. Reductions in consumption following the income shock were 50 percent higher in Black households, and 20 percent higher in Hispanic households, compared to non-Hispanic White households [4]. The Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel finds similar patterns in racial disproportionality, with 61 percent of Hispanics and 44 percent of Blacks reporting a loss of employment and wages during the coronavirus outbreak, compared to 38 percent of White respondents. Economic hardship is also reported at higher rates for racial and ethnic minorities, with 73 percent of Black and 70 percent of Hispanic adults reporting that they lacked emergency funds to cover three months of expenses (compared to 47% of Whites), and Blacks and Hispanics more often reporting that they would be unable to fully pay bills in April 2020 (48 percent Black, 44 percent Hispanic, vs 26 percent White respondents [6].

Households have responded to the loss of income and the threat of loss of income with a sharp decline in aggregate spending and an associated increase in saving since the onset of the pandemic [8–11]. Households’ ability to save was enhanced by the provision of government-funded stimulus payments and increased unemployment benefits [11–15]. However, the ability to reduce household spending and increase household saving is not universal. Recent household surveys reveal that one in five households have depleted their savings, fallen behind on housing payments, or are experiencing difficulty paying debts, buying groceries, and paying utilities [6, 7, 16–18].

This study will expand on this research regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on household finances. Specifically, the analysis examines whether those who are most vulnerable financially are disproportionately experiencing a negative financial impact from the pandemic. We also explore demographic variation in the impact of the pandemic on household finances, and how the financial impact varies by employment factors and for individuals with health risk factors.

Methods

Sample description

This study was approved by the Westat Institutional Review Board. The project number is 1065, FWA 00005551. Informed consent was obtained in writing.

The Coronavirus Attitudes and Beliefs survey was administered in May 2020. An invitation to participate in the online survey was mailed to 13, 590 randomly selected households across the United States. The online survey included a discussion of the risks and benefits of participation and solicited informed consent. The survey included questions regarding individuals’ beliefs about risk of becoming infected, likely consequences of contracting the virus, concerns about the impact of the virus, impact of the pandemic on household finances, and changes in behavior since the onset of the pandemic. After subtracting surveys that were not deliverable, 10 percent of those invited to participate completed the survey, yielding a sample of 1,222 respondents. The sample was weighted and adjusted for nonresponse, to yield a nationally representative sample for analysis. While low, the response rate is in line with that found in other nationally-representative web surveys [19]. However, we recognize the need for caution in the interpretation of these descriptive results; we include 95 percent confidence intervals, adjusted for non-response, with all findings.

Table 1 provides the distribution of the analysis sample by age, gender, race and ethnicity, marital status, size of household, education, and household gross annual income. The sample aligns with the distribution of the U.S. population on nearly all factors, with a slight disproportionality by race and by education. Black adults are underrepresented (9 percent in the sample versus 13 percent nationally), while Asians are overrepresented (8 percent in the sample versus 5 percent nationally). Regarding education, those who have some college or technical school are overrepresented (31 percent in the sample versus 26 percent nationally), while those who have a bachelor’s or professional degree are underrepresented (30 percent in the sample versus 36 percent nationally).

Table 1. Demographics characteristics.

Sample Size Weighted Frequency Standard Error Percentage
Total 1222 253815197 3324800 100.00
Age
    18 to 25 yrs 113 40461384 2401859 16.69
    26 to 45 yrs 362 76425696 3235669 31.52
    46 to 65 yrs 416 76962446 3219014 31.74
    65 yrs or older 301 48630038 2041588 20.10
Gender
    Male 531 122565576 626686 48.72
    Female 681 129019577 765188 51.28
Race/Ethnicity
    Hispanic 94 40874758 259877 16.33
    White 1020 189238372 2145663 74.56
    Black 67 22697827 2265332 8.94
    Asian 76 20798513 2378938 8.19
    American Indian/ Alaskan Native 20 8014481 2234061 3.16
    Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 10 2144684 970601 0.85
    Other 44 13374093 2060264 5.27
Marital Status
    Married 664 131701352 4646478 52.15
    Widowed 63 9943835 1574697 3.94
    Divorced 162 26580270 2975455 10.53
    Separated 23 5428520 1299325 2.15
    Never married 302 78873602 4042989 31.23
Number in Household
    1 236 31276237 2782316 12.51
    2 465 85807109 4127375 34.32
    3 207 49197103 3799333 19.68
    4 177 44861293 4230072 17.94
    5 or more 122 38862849 8448049 15.55
Education
    Less than HS diploma 39 29883311 1063300 11.86
    HS graduate or GED 166 69172779 624789 27.44
    Some college or technical school 200 51349468 2510793 20.37
    Associate’s degree or professional certificate 117 26507343 2510793 10.52
    Bachelor’s degree 399 46273239 1757095 18.36
    Master’s or doctorate 293 28860538 1903888 11.45
Annual Gross Household Income
    Less than 25k 118 35434915 3961825 17.90
    25k – 49,999 175 43781293 3643766 22.11
    50k - 74,999 197 37463241 3701604 18.92
    75k – 149,999 299 52579998 4033776 26.55
    150k or more 210 28758236 2788169 14.52
Open in a new tab

Source: Coronavirus Attitudes and Behaviors Survey, 2020.

Table 2 shows the sample distribution on health factors including diagnosed conditions that increase the risk of severe illness resulting from COVID-19 infection, having experienced COVID-19 symptoms, having been tested for COVID-19, and testing positive for COVID-19. The majority of respondents reported a diagnosis for one or more health conditions that are risk factors for severe illness from COVID-19 (52 percent). The most common conditions were high blood pressure (30 percent), depression or anxiety (25 percent), followed by respiratory condition (16 percent). Less common conditions were diabetes (9 percent), heart condition (8 percent), autoimmune disorder (5 percent), and kidney disease (2 percent).

Table 2. Health factors.

Sample Size Weighted Frequency Standard Error Percentage
Total 1222 253815197 3324800 100.00
Health Risk Factors
    None 509 111990349 4942789 47.55
    1 346 67684006 4777217 28.74
    2 166 36180999 3501416 15.36
    3 or more 101 19650563 4637792 8.34
Diagnosed Conditions
    High blood pressure 355 73697114 4103066 29.95
    Depression/Anxiety 314 61285902 3987800 25.18
    Respiratory condition 173 38819061 3479973 15.99
    Diabetes 108 21950878 2681388 9.01
    Heart disease 96 19292446 2816373 7.91
    Autoimmune disorder 89 12527409 1678676 5.18
    Kidney disease 28 4986774 1468621 2.07
COVID-19 Symptoms
    Yes 157 27828511 2946696 11.03
    No 1057 224387138 3011674 88.97
Tested for COVID-19
    Yes 59 11911173 2056822 4.71
    No 1160 241071511 2037478 95.29
Tested Positive for COVID-19
    Yes 5 1302255 774292 0.52
    No 1210 251052958 996138 99.48
Open in a new tab

Source: Coronavirus Attitudes and Behaviors Survey, 2020.

Approximately 1 in 10 respondents reported having experienced COVID-19 symptoms. As of May 2020, 1 in 20 respondents had been tested for COVID-19, and less than 1 percent (0.5 percent) tested positive for the virus. This is comparable to reported national rates of COVID for this period as reported by the CDC [20].

The literature review indicates that those who are most vulnerable (lower-income households, households with children, and households headed by racial and ethnic minorities) are disproportionately experiencing negative financial impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 3 shows the distribution of the analysis sample on several factors that describe household financial status. The first measure indicates how well the respondent is managing household finances, with 1 in 5 respondents reporting that they are just getting by, and 11 percent reporting that they are having difficulty getting by. The survey also asks about strategies that would be employed if faced with an emergency expense ($400). The majority of the respondents (65 percent) reported that they would use cash to meet an emergency expense, while 2 in 5 respondents indicated that they would use a credit card for this purpose, and 1 in 10 would obtain a bank loan. The remaining strategies reflect limited access to cash or credit. The most common of these is to avoid payment of the obligation (28 percent), followed by selling something (24 percent), or borrowing from family or friends (22 percent). The least common strategy was to obtain a payday loan (6 percent).

Table 3. Financial factors.

Sample Size Weighted Frequency Standard Error Percentage
Total 1222 253815197 3324800 100.00
Financial Management
    Difficult to get by 89 28081949 3147397 11.13
    Just getting by 187 50411041 4252633 19.98
    Doing okay 534 108056047 5148955 42.82
    Living comfortably 403 65817195 4486501 26.08
Strategies for meeting emergency expense
    Borrow from family or friends 130 43218888 3917130 21.52
    Payday loan 43 12705178 2473374 6.42
    Sell something 157 47411465 4496956 23.76
    Avoid payment 170 53020162 3909146 28.14
    Bank loan 67 20075248 3384543 10.03
    Credit card 892 170161980 10048921 39.13
    Cash 681 140079339 4416525 65.24
Financial Vulnerability
    None 701 114062565 4103436 44.94
    1 224 50354533 3994529 19.84
    2 98 25009786 2741508 9.85
    3 64 19737907 3399066 7.78
    4 61 20202822 2784622 7.96
    5 38 13843768 2589201 5.45
    6 to 8 36 10603816 3549674 4.18
Essential Worker
    Yes 349 71453046 3985704 29.90
    No 824 167545605 4141565 70.10
Change in hours worked outside of home
    Decreased a lot 515 98490133 4811691 52.38
    Decreased somewhat 84 19698965 2789492 10.48
    No change 234 55411580 4523352 29.47
    Increased somewhat 31 7876010 2057801 4.19
    Increased a lot 22 6570374 1654239 3.49
Open in a new tab

Source: Coronavirus Attitudes and Behaviors Survey, 2020.

In order to capture the financial context in modeling the financial impact of COVID on households, we developed a composite measure of financial vulnerability. Recent research in the area of economics have employed measures of financial vulnerability that capture both financial instability and levels of debt [21, 22]. For the purposes of examining financial vulnerability and disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, we examine available resources (household income, access to cash or credit in an emergency) and ability to meet household expenses. This measure is an index variable, where each subject receives points on the index scale under the following conditions: 1) lower gross annual household income (2 points for annual household income less than $25,000, 1 point for annual household income greater than $25,000 and less than $50,000; 2) difficulty meeting household expenses (2 points for difficulty getting by, 1 point for just getting by); and 3) one point for each strategy for meeting an emergency expense that indicates limited cash reserves or access to credit (borrowing from family or friends, obtaining a payday loan, selling something, or avoiding payment). The score on this index ranges from 0 to 8. Just over one-half of the analysis sample (55 percent) exhibit at least one of these markers for financial vulnerability, with 1 in 3 respondents having a score of 2 or more on this measure.

Household financial status is also examined in regards to employment factors. Table 3 shows that 2 in 3 respondents experienced some reduction in hours worked, while 30 percent were essential workers.

Outcomes

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on household finances is examined on five factors. The first two are indicators of change in household income and typical weekly spending compared to the prior month. Table 4 shows that close to one-half of respondents (44 percent) experienced a decrease in household income, and approximately 2 out of 3 respondents (64 percent) reported a decrease in typical weekly spending.

Table 4. Financial impact outcomes.

Sample Size Weighted Frequency Standard Error Percentage
Total 1222 253815197 3324800 100.00
Change in income
    Decreased a lot 162 44782593 4455113 17.85
    Decreased somewhat 287 65555383 4883951 26.13
    No change 673 122049838 4931792 48.66
    Increased somewhat 74 16471543 2218313 6.57
    Increased a lot 11 1987607 799963 0.79
Change in spending
    Decreased a lot 205 46340516 4056116 18.37
    Decreased somewhat 614 115849395 5050220 45.93
    No change 237 54839253 4561537 21.74
    Increased somewhat 142 31514994 2918049 12.49
    Increased a lot 14 3707591 1110816 1.47
Negative impact
    Yes 218 44416914 3445397 17.50
    No 1004 209398283 3445397 82.50
Neutral impact
    Yes 532 96315996 4231512 37.95
    No 690 157499201 4231512 62.05
Positive impact
    Yes 118 19416005 2428251 7.65
    No 1104 234399192 2428251 92.35
Open in a new tab

Source: Coronavirus Attitudes and Behaviors Survey, 2020.

Respondents were also given the open text prompt, “Please describe in your own words how you are managing financially during the pandemic.” Responses were uploaded to NVivo Version 11 for analysis. Inductive coding was used to classify responses. Three broad classifications emerged: negative financial impact, neutral financial impact, and positive financial impact. Subcodes were inductively derived within each of these classifications. Approximately 1 in 5 respondents (18 percent) described a negative financial impact, including increased cost of food, loss of income, and being unable to fully pay household bills. A neutral impact was described by 38 percent of respondents, including those who received government assistance, those who retired, and those who experienced no change in household finances. Only 8 percent indicated that they had experienced a positive financial impact, including reduced expenses, reduced spending, and a stable income.

Results

The first step of the analysis is an examination of demographic (including age, gender, race, household size, and education), health (risk factors for experiencing severe COVID-19 outcomes), and employment factors (essential worker status and reduction in work hours) that predict financial vulnerability. Table 5 shows the results of a multivariate linear regression analysis, predicting financial vulnerability. Each of these factors was tested first in bivariate models, and all significant bivariate predictors were entered into the multivariate model. Nonsignificant factors (p-values less than 0.05) in the multivariate model were then removed using a backwards selection process. The model results indicate that Hispanic respondents, those with less than a Bachelor’s degree, and those with one or more health risk factors were more vulnerable financially. White respondents and those who were married were less financially vulnerable.

Table 5. Predictors of financial vulnerability–demographic, health, and employment factors (multivariate linear regression).

Predictor Regression Coefficient Standard Error p-value
Race/Ethnicity
    Hispanic 0.66 0.25 0.0095
    White -0.65 0.21 0.0024
Marital Status
    Married -0.92 0.15 <0.0001
Education
    Less than Bachelor’s degree 0.95 0.11 <0.0001
Health Risk Factors
    1 or more 0.48 0.15 0.0013
Open in a new tab

Source: Coronavirus Attitudes and Behaviors Survey, 2020.

The second step in the analysis was to examine the influence of financial vulnerability, demographics, health factors and employment factors on the impact of COVID on household finances. Financial impact is examined in terms of loss of income; decrease in spending, reported negative impact (increased cost of food, loss of income, and being unable to fully pay household bills); reported neutral impact (receiving government assistance, retiring, and experiencing no change in household finances); and reported positive impact (reduced expenses, reduced spending, or stable income).

Table 6 displays the results of the multivariate logistic regression analyses, predicting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on household finances. For the purposes of this analysis, financial vulnerability is reduced to 2 levels, allowing a comparison of those with 2 or more vulnerability factors to those with 1 or no vulnerability factors. Respondents with only 1 vulnerability factor were included in the reference group to provide greater sensitivity in the indicator variable, as those with only 1 vulnerability factor (e.g., lower household income), would also have some protective factors (e.g., able to manage household finances sufficiently, while also having access to credit or cash in an emergency).

Table 6. Predictors of COVID-19 impact on household finances–financial vulnerability, demographic, health, and employment factors (multivariate logistic regression).

Predictor Loss of Income Reduced Spending Negative Impact Neutral Impact Positive Impact
Financial Vulnerability
    2 or more vulnerability factors 6.33*** ns 6.67*** 0.10*** 0.04*
Race/Ethnicity
    Hispanic 1.82* ns ns ns 2.71*
Education
    At least a Bachelor’s degree ns 1.64** ns ns ns
Employment
    Non-essential worker ns 1.52* ns ns ns
Open in a new tab

Source: Coronavirus Attitudes and Behaviors Survey, 2020.

NOTE: Figures in cells represent the odds ratios.

† = p<0.10

* = p<05

** = p<0.01

*** = p<0.001.

Individuals who were financially vulnerable were 6 times more likely to experience reduced income during the pandemic, while Hispanics were almost twice as likely to have a loss of income. Individuals with less than a college degree and essential workers were less likely to have reduced spending during the pandemic (by 39 percent and 31 percent, respectively). Those who were financially vulnerable were almost 7 times more likely to experience a negative financial impact from the pandemic, while they were less likely to experience a neutral or positive financial impact (by 90 percent and 96 percent, respectively). For perspective, note that those who were not financially vulnerable were 10 times more likely to experience a neutral financial impact, and 25 times more likely to experience a positive financial impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

Discussion

The novel coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) that began in Spring 2020 has had a substantial impact on the ability of individuals to effectively manage household finances. Researchers are only beginning to examine the nature and extent of this impact, while identifying the population segments that are experiencing the most severe impact and informing policy for providing the necessary supports for those who are struggling most. Current studies of the financial impact of the pandemic on individuals and households are based on aggregate public data, surveys that are not nationally representative, and cross-sectional surveys. This study employs a nationally-representative household survey to examine how the pandemic was affecting household finances in the earliest months of the pandemic. Although our study is descriptive rather than causal, and results should be interpreted with caution, they nevertheless help to illuminate the conditions facing American households as of May 2020. While identifying the subpopulations who are experiencing the most severe hardships (and those who appear more resilient), we also describe patterns of adaption to financial hardship, such as reductions in household spending.

As anticipated, and consistent with recent research findings, we find that those who are financially vulnerable (lowest incomes, limited access to cash and credit, and struggling to meet ordinary expenses) are most likely to experience negative financial impact from the coronavirus pandemic. The financially vulnerable are 6 times more likely to experience loss of income and nearly 7 times more likely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. Those who are not financially vulnerable are 10 times more likely to experience neutral impact and 25 times more likely to experience positive impact during the pandemic. Those who are most likely to be financially vulnerable include Hispanics, those who are non-White, unmarried, and those who have less than a Bachelor’s degree. This group also includes individuals who have health conditions that put them at greater risk of severe illness or death if they contracted the virus.

In terms of race, we find that the increased likelihood of experiencing a negative impact for non-Whites is explained by a greater likelihood of this group being financially vulnerable. However, Hispanic ethnicity directly predicts loss of income. After controlling for financial vulnerability, Hispanics still have a greater likelihood of experiencing a loss of income during the pandemic by 82 percent. Interestingly, Hispanics also have a greater likelihood of experiencing a positive impact from the pandemic (nearly 3 times more likely), compared to non-Hispanics, when controlling for financial vulnerability. While on the surface, these findings may appear contradictory, it is possible that, even in the presence of reduced household income, some individuals may have been able to reduce expenses and spending sufficiently to have seen an overall improvement in their finances during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Reduced spending during the pandemic was the only outcome that did not vary by financial vulnerability. This outcome was predicted only by education level and essential worker status. Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree were 64 percent more likely to reduce their spending during the pandemic, while non-essential workers were 50 percent more likely to reduce spending. This may be due to the availability of discretionary income on the part of college-educated respondents and those who continued to work as essential workers during the pandemic.

Conclusions

While government-funded assistance was broadly available during the pandemic in the form of stimulus checks and expanded unemployment benefits, these measures were not sufficient to buffer the negative financial impact of the pandemic for those who are most vulnerable financially. This group includes racial and ethnic minorities, those who are unmarried, those with lower levels of education, and those with health conditions that put them at higher risk of severe outcomes from the coronavirus. This population, already struggling to provide basic necessities for themselves and their families prior to the pandemic, have been faced with reduced opportunities for earning wages and lack sufficient public support to buffer the impact of this public health crisis. Governmental efforts to counter the financial impact of the pandemic should be targeted to these most vulnerable individuals. Future research should examine the longer-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on household finances, in order to observe the extent to which individuals are able to adapt to the changing economy, or the extent to which financial hardship may persist or increase as the pandemic and associated lockdowns are eased or extended.

Supporting information

S1 File. Stanford university school of medicine coronavirus attitudes and behaviors survey.

Survey Questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (61.9KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Stanford University School of Medicine team, led by Dr. M. Kate Bundorf, for their contributions to the development and fielding of this study.

Data Availability

The data files are housed at https://covid19.richdataservices.com/westat/westat_covid_2020/.

Funding Statement

Westat provided funding in the form of salaries for CB, MG, JDM, KL, TM, JN, and JW. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

Decision Letter 0

Ali B Mahmoud

22 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-15762

Financial vulnerability and the impact of COVID-19 on American households

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gearing,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ali B. Mahmoud, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified whether consent was informed.

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed the survey or questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the questionnaire is published, please provide a citation to the (1) questionnaire and/or (2) original publication associated with the questionnaire.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Westat.

4.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

4.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: See attached PDF.

Reviewer #2: The article examines the impact of COVID-19 on financial status and how this impact varies by demographic characteristics, the presence of health risk factors, and financial factors. The survey suggests that financial impacts are different especially to the financial vulnerable group, which experience financial difficulty even during non-pandemic situation. This paper addresses a topic of keen interest to several readers of the PLOS ONE. The research design in this paper is sufficient, appropriate and clearly justified. The empirical results appear to be competently implemented and the results have been clearly explained. The present draft needs minor modification and clarification as follow:

1) Please check the write up line 145. The sentence is as follow; …2 in 5 respondents reporting that they are just getting by…In Table 3, the percentage of “Just Getting By” is 19.98% but the 2 in 5 respondents show 40%.

2) Spelling error on line 255 “…wo are struggling”

3) Line 279 to 283 states that “After controlling for financial vulnerability, Hispanics still have a greater likelihood of experiencing a loss of income during the pandemic by 82 percent. Interestingly, Hispanics also have a greater likelihood of experiencing a positive impact from the pandemic (nearly 3 times more likely), compared to non-Hispanics, when controlling for financial vulnerability.” This statement seems contradict. Hispanics group appear to loss of income but experience positive impact from the pandemic. The statements need more clarification.

4) Line 287 to 289. “Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree were 64 percent more likely to reduce their spending during the pandemic, while non-essential workers were 50 percent more likely to reduce spending.” Please check the percentage accordingly in Table 6.

5) The paper could point out the areas for additional research work.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review PONE-D-21-15762.pdf

Click here for additional data file. (98.5KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2022 Jan 14;17(1):e0262301. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262301.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

30 Sep 2021

Reviewer #1

The reviewer’s point that our work does not include several previously-validated measures of financial vulnerability is well-taken. The paper is, generally, descriptive and a-historical. This is the result of the study design itself. We did not set out to examine financial vulnerability to COVID. Rather, we wanted to capture a snapshot of how Americans were responding to COVID in May 2020, along multiple axes of interest, including behavior, finances, and emotional well-being. As such, questions about finances were only one part of the questionnaire and included validated measures asking about changes in income and ability to cope with an unexpected expense. Our interest in financial vulnerability emerged upon analysis of the survey results, when we noted large disparities in the ability to cope financially with the pandemic reported by survey respondents. Hindsight being 20/20, we certainly wish we had included other measures of financial vulnerability, but we hope that our descriptive results may yet provide a fuller understanding of how some Americans experienced financial stress early in the pandemic. We have also added additional citations to the literature on financial vulnerability to further contextualize our results.

Page 3, lines 72-74: Corrected to “lacked” emergency funds

Page 5, lines 108-109: Specified that this referred to gross annual income

Page 8, table 2: Added footnote to clarify that the national incidence of COVID-19 among the U.S. adult population was 0.7, which falls within the 95% confidence interval of our sample.

Page 11, table 4: This was an error made by the corresponding author and has been fixed.

Page 14, table 6: Added text clarifying analysis and a footnote describing index more clearly

Page 16, lines 277-283: Added additional text to contextualize results and their implications

Reviewer #2

Line 145: Corrected

Line 255: Corrected spelling error

Lines 279-283: Added text to clarify results more

Lines 287-289: The table the text referred to was showing the incorrect figures; this was corrected.

Also added additional areas for research

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (13.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ali B Mahmoud

8 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-15762R1Financial vulnerability and the impact of COVID-19 on American householdsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gearing,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 23 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ali B. Mahmoud, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for trying to address my comments on the previous version of the paper. I note that the paper by Anderloni et al. (2012) has been published, but is mentioned as a "departmental working paper" in the reference list.

Please correct to: Anderloni, L., Bacchiocchi, E., & Vandone, D. (2012). Household financial vulnerability: An empirical analysis. Research in Economics, 66(3), 284-296.

I also notice that the reference to the paper by Hoffmann and McNair (2018) contains typos in the author names. In particular "Hoffman" should be "Hoffmann". Please correct this as well.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Given the very poor response rate, despite the weighting, the analysis can best be described as descriptive. The statistical tools used are routine. The authors should at least note a serious limitation in the discussion as to the low response rate and the fact that the results should be interpreted with precaution.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jan 14;17(1):e0262301. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262301.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

20 Dec 2021

Reviewer #1

Thank you for the corrections on the references. These have been addressed.

Reviewer #3

Thank you for your comments. We agree that this is a descriptive analysis; although the response rate is in line with similar nationally-representative online surveys, we do want to be cautious in interpretation, as we cannot determine causality. We have added caveats and cautions about interpretation to our discussion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (11.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Ali B Mahmoud

21 Dec 2021

Financial vulnerability and the impact of COVID-19 on American households

PONE-D-21-15762R2

Dear Dr. Gearing,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ali B. Mahmoud, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Ali B Mahmoud

31 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-15762R2

Financial vulnerability and the impact of COVID-19 on American households

Dear Dr. Gearing:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ali B. Mahmoud

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Stanford university school of medicine coronavirus attitudes and behaviors survey.

    Survey Questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (61.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review PONE-D-21-15762.pdf

    Click here for additional data file. (98.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (13.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (11.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data files are housed at https://covid19.richdataservices.com/westat/westat_covid_2020/.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES