Background
Meta-analyses have shown that preexisting mental disorders may increase serious Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, especially mortality. However, most studies were conducted during the first months of the pandemic, were inconclusive for several categories of mental disorders, and not fully controlled for potential confounders. Our study objectives were to assess independent associations between various categories of mental disorders and COVID-19-related mortality in a nationwide sample of COVID-19 inpatients discharged over 18 months and the potential role of salvage therapy triage to explain these associations.
Methods and findings:
We analysed a nationwide retrospective cohort of all adult inpatients discharged with symptomatic COVID-19 between February 24, 2020 and August 28, 2021 in mainland France. The primary exposure was preexisting mental disorders assessed from all discharge information recorded over the last 9 years (dementia, depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, alcohol use disorders, opioid use disorders, Down syndrome, other learning disabilities, and other disorder requiring psychiatric ward admission). The main outcomes were all-cause mortality and access to salvage therapy (intensive-care unit admission or life-saving respiratory support) assessed at 120 days after recorded COVID-19 diagnosis at hospital. Independent associations were analysed in multivariate logistic models. Of 465,750 inpatients with symptomatic COVID-19, 153,870 (33.0%) were recorded with a history of mental disorders. Almost all categories of mental disorders were independently associated with higher mortality risks (except opioid use disorders) and lower salvage therapy rates (except opioid use disorders and Down syndrome). After taking into account the mortality risk predicted at baseline from patient vulnerability (including older age and severe somatic comorbidities), excess mortality risks due to caseload surges in hospitals were +5.0% (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.7 to 5.2) in patients without mental disorders (for a predicted risk of 13.3% [95% CI, 13.2 to 13.4] at baseline) and significantly higher in patients with mental disorders (+9.3% [95% CI, 8.9 to 9.8] for a predicted risk of 21.2% [95% CI, 21.0 to 21.4] at baseline). In contrast, salvage therapy rates during caseload surges in hospitals were significantly higher than expected in patients without mental disorders (+4.2% [95% CI, 3.8 to 4.5]) and lower in patients with mental disorders (−4.1% [95% CI, −4.4; −3.7]) for predicted rates similar at baseline (18.8% [95% CI, 18.7-18.9] and 18.0% [95% CI, 17.9-18.2], respectively). The main limitations of our study point to the assessment of COVID-19-related mortality at 120 days and potential coding bias of medical information recorded in hospital claims data, although the main study findings were consistently reproduced in multiple sensitivity analyses.
Conclusions:
COVID-19 patients with mental disorders had lower odds of accessing salvage therapy, suggesting that life-saving measures at French hospitals were disproportionately denied to patients with mental disorders in this exceptional context.

Public good games are at the core of many environmental challenges. In such social dilemmas, a large share of people endorse the norm of reciprocity. A growing literature complements this finding with the observation that many players exhibit a self-serving bias in reciprocation: “weak reciprocators” increase their contributions as a function of the effort level of the other players, but less than proportionally. In this paper, we build upon a growing literature on truth-telling to argue that weak reciprocity might be best conceived not as a preference, but rather as a symptom of an internal trade-off at the player level between (i) the truthful revelation of their private reciprocal preference, and (ii) the economic incentives they face (which foster free-riding). In truth-telling experiments, many players misrepresent private information when this is to their material benefit, but to a significantly lesser extent than what would be expected based on the profit-maximizing strategy. We apply this behavioral insight to strategic situations, and test whether the preference revelation properties of the classic voluntary contribution game can be improved by offering players the possibility to sign a classic truth-telling oath. Our results suggest that the honesty oath helps increase cooperation (by 33% in our experiment). Subjects under oath contribute in a way which is more consistent with (i) the contribution they expect from the other players and (ii) their normative views about the right contribution level. As a result, the distribution of social types elicited under oath differs from the one observed in the baseline: some free-riders, and many weak reciprocators, now behave as pure reciprocators.

This study explores whether an oath to honesty can reduce both shirking and lying among crowd-sourced internet workers. Using a classic coin-flip experiment, we first confirm that a substantial majority of Mechanical Turk workers both shirk and lie when reporting the number of heads flipped. We then demonstrate that lying can be reduced by first asking each worker to swear voluntarily on his or her honor to tell the truth in subsequent economic decisions. Even in this online, purely anonymous environment, the oath significantly reduced the percent of subjects telling “big” lies (by roughly 27%), but did not affect shirking. We also explore whether a truth-telling oath can be used as a screening device if implemented after decisions have been made. Conditional on flipping response, MTurk shirkers and workers who lied were significantly less likely to agree to an ex-post honesty oath. Our results suggest oaths may help elicit more truthful behavior, even in online crowd-sourced environments.

We propose a structural econometric model that incorporates altruism towards other household members into the willingness to pay for a public good. The model distinguishes preferences for public good improvements for oneself from preferences for improvements for other household members. We test for three different types of altruism - ‘pure self-interest’, ‘pure altruism’ and ‘public-good-focused non-pure altruism’. Using French contingent valuation data regarding air quality improvements, we find positive and significant degrees of concern for children under the age of 18, which are explained by determinants related to health and subjective air quality assessment. All other forms of pure or air-quality-focused altruism within the family are insignificant, including for children over 18, siblings, spouses, and parents. This result suggests that benefit estimates that do not consider altruism could undervalue improvements in air quality in France.