Background With the approval of two COVID-19 vaccines in Canada, many people feel a sense of relief, as hope is on the horizon. However, only about 75% of people in Canada plan to receive one of the vaccines. Objective The purpose of this study is to determine the reasons why people in Canada feel hesitant toward receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Methods We screened 3915 tweets from public Twitter profiles in Canada by using the search words “vaccine” and “COVID.” The tweets that met the inclusion criteria (ie, those about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy) were coded via content analysis. Codes were then organized into themes and interpreted by using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results Overall, 605 tweets were identified as those about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy stemmed from the following themes: concerns over safety, suspicion about political or economic forces driving the COVID-19 pandemic or vaccine development, a lack of knowledge about the vaccine, antivaccine or confusing messages from authority figures, and a lack of legal liability from vaccine companies. This study also examined mistrust toward the medical industry not due to hesitancy, but due to the legacy of communities marginalized by health care institutions. These themes were categorized into the following five Theoretical Domains Framework constructs: knowledge, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, social influence, and emotion. Conclusions With the World Health Organization stating that one of the worst threats to global health is vaccine hesitancy, it is important to have a comprehensive understanding of the reasons behind this reluctance. By using a behavioral science framework, this study adds to the emerging knowledge about vaccine hesitancy in relation to COVID-19 vaccines by analyzing public discourse in tweets in real time. Health care leaders and clinicians may use this knowledge to develop public health interventions that are responsive to the concerns of people who are hesitant to receive vaccines.

No abstract

The concept of eHealth literacy is beginning to be recognized as a being of key importance in the design and adoption of effective and efficient health information systems and applications targeted to lay people and patients. Indeed, many systems such as patient portals and personal health records have not been adopted due to a mismatch between the level of eHealth literacy demanded by a system and the level of eHealth literacy possessed by end users. The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of important concepts related to eHealth literacy, as well as how the notion of eHealth literacy can be applied to improve the design and adoption of consumer health information systems. This paper begins with describing the importance of eHealth literacy with respect to design of health applications for the general public paired with examples of consumer health information systems whose limited success and adoption has been attributed to the lack of consideration for eHealth literacy. This is followed by definitions of what eHealth literacy is and how it emerged from the related concept of health literacy. A model for conceptualizing the importance of aligning consumers’ eHealth literacy skills and the demands systems place on their skills is then described. Next, current tools for assessing consumers’ eHealth literacy levels are outlined, followed by an approach to systematically incorporating eHealth literacy in the deriving requirements for new systems is presented. Finally, a discussion of evolving approaches for incorporating eHealth literacy into usability engineering methods is presented.

BackgroundAdvance care planning may help patients receive treatments that better align with their goals for care. We developed a Web-based decision aid called InformedTogether to facilitate shared advance care planning between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and their doctors.ObjectiveOur objective was to assess the usability of the InformedTogether decision aid, including whether users could interact with the decision aid to engage in tasks required for shared decision making, whether users found the decision aid acceptable, and implications for redesign.MethodsWe conducted an observational study with 15 patients and 8 doctors at two ethnically and socioeconomically diverse outpatient clinics. Data included quantitative and qualitative observations of patients and doctors using the decision aid on tablet or laptop computers and data from semistructured interviews. Patients were shown the decision aid by a researcher acting as the doctor. Pulmonary doctors were observed using the decision aid independently and asked to think aloud (ie, verbalize their thoughts). A thematic analysis was implemented to explore key issues related to decision aid usability.ResultsAlthough patients and doctors found InformedTogether acceptable and would recommend that doctors use the decision aid with COPD patients, many patients had difficulty understanding the icon arrays that were used to communicate estimated prognoses and could not articulate the definitions of the two treatment choices—Full Code and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Minor usability problems regarding content, links, layout, and consistency were also identified and corresponding recommendations were outlined. In particular, participants suggested including more information about potential changes in quality of life resulting from the alternative advance directives. Some doctor participants thought the decision aid was too long and some thought it may cause nervousness among patients due to the topic area.ConclusionsA decision aid for shared advance care planning for severe COPD was found acceptable to most COPD patients and their doctors. However, many patient participants did not demonstrate understanding of the treatment options or prognostic estimates. Many participants endorsed the use of the decision aid between doctors and their patients with COPD, although they desired more information about quality of life. The design must optimize comprehensibility, including revising the presentation of statistical information in the icon array, and feasibility of integration into clinical workflow, including shortening the decision aid.

The journey map concept evolved out of the service design field and is still relatively new in the healthcare landscape [1]. Journey maps are visualizations that effectively highlight organizational issues and allow stakeholder groups to be depicted by interest or function for a comparative visual analysis [2]. There are five journey map approaches: 1) Mental (Cognitive) Model Map, 2) Customer Journey Map, 3) Experience Map, 4) Service Blueprint Map, 5) Spatial Map. The objective of this article is three-fold: 1) quantify and delineate the journey mapping visualization techniques utilized from the phase 1 scoping review [2], 2) create a Journey Map Evaluation Guide, 3) create a Journey Map Decision Support Tool to facilitate a standardized method for journey map selection. For those less familiar with journey mapping, this framework can serve as a decision-making tool to facilitate the most effective choice among the different journey mapping visualization approaches. The tools presented in this study can provide a mechanism to standardize the assessment, classification and utilization of journey maps in the healthcare sector and industries abound.