Background Information and opinions shared by health care providers can affect patient vaccination decisions, but little is known about who health care providers themselves trust for information in the context of new COVID-19 vaccines. Objective The purpose of this study is to investigate which sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines are trusted by health care providers and how they communicate this information to patients. Methods This mixed methods study involved a one-time, web-based survey of health care providers and qualitative interviews with a subset of survey respondents. Health care providers (physicians, advanced practice providers, pharmacists, nurses) were recruited from an integrated health system in Southern California using voluntary response sampling, with follow-up interviews with providers who either accepted or declined a COVID-19 vaccine. The outcome was the type of information sources that respondents reported trusting for information about COVID-19 vaccines. Bivariate tests were used to compare trusted information sources by provider type; thematic analysis was used to explore perspectives about vaccine information and communicating with patients about vaccines. Results The survey was completed by 2948 providers, of whom 91% (n=2683) responded that they had received ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The most frequently trusted source of COVID-19 vaccine information was government agencies (n=2513, 84.2%); the least frequently trusted source was social media (n=691, 9.5%). More physicians trusted government agencies (n=1226, 93%) than nurses (n=927, 78%) or pharmacists (n=203, 78%; P<.001), and more physicians trusted their employer (n=1115, 84%) than advanced practice providers (n=95, 67%) and nurses (n=759, 64%; P=.002). Qualitative themes (n=32 participants) about trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information were identified: processing new COVID-19 information in a health care work context likened to a “war zone” during the pandemic and communicating information to patients. Some providers were hesitant to recommend vaccines to pregnant people and groups they perceived to be at low risk for COVID-19. Conclusions Physicians have stronger trust in government sources and their employers for information about COVID-19 vaccines compared with nurses, pharmacists, and advanced practice providers. Strategies such as role modeling, tailored messaging, or talking points with standard language may help providers to communicate accurate COVID-19 vaccine information to patients, and these strategies may also be used with providers with lower levels of trust in reputable information sources.
Introduction: There is evidence for relatively lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people of color in the United States. The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between race/ethnicity and COVID-19 vaccine uptake among nurses. Methods: Nurses in Southern California ( N = 1183) completed a one-time, web-based survey to assess COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and uptake. Results: In all, 82.8% of respondents ( N = 979) received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Identifying as East Asian was associated with 14% higher odds of COVID-19 vaccine uptake relative to identifying as White (odds ratio [OR] = 1.14/95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.06, 1.24]); identifying as Filipino was associated with 14% higher odds of uptake (OR = 1.14/95% CI = [1.08, 1.20]); and identifying as Hispanic/Latinx was associated with 6% higher odds of uptake (OR = 1.06/95% CI = [1.00, 1.12]). Discussion: Although nurses and people of color have been identified as groups with low levels of COVID-19 vaccine uptake, this study found that nurses of color received the vaccine at higher levels than their White counterparts.
Background Despite the availability of effective therapies, most gout patients achieve suboptimal treatment outcomes. Current best practices suggest gradual dose-escalation of urate lowering therapy and serial serum urate (sUA) measurement to achieve sUA < 6.0 mg/dl. However, this strategy is not routinely used. Here we present the study design rationale and development for a pharmacist-led intervention to promote sUA goal attainment. Methods To overcome barriers in achieving optimal outcomes, we planned and implemented the Randomized Evaluation of an Ambulatory Care Pharmacist-Led Intervention to Optimize Urate Lowering Pathways (RAmP-UP) study. This is a large pragmatic cluster-randomized trial designed to assess a highly automated, pharmacist-led intervention to optimize allopurinol treatment in gout. Ambulatory clinics (n=101) from a large health system were randomized to deliver either the pharmacist-led intervention or usual care to gout patients over the age of 18 years newly initiating allopurinol. All participants received educational materials and could opt-out of the study. For intervention sites, pharmacists conducted outreach primarily via an automated telephone interactive voice recognition system. The outreach, guided by a gout care algorithm developed for this study, systematically promoted adherence assessment, facilitated sUA testing, provided education, and adjusted allopurinol dosing. The primary study outcomes are achievement of sUA < 6.0 mg/dl and treatment adherence determined after one year. With follow-up ongoing, study results will be reported subsequently. Conclusion Ambulatory care pharmacists and automated calling technology represent potentially important, underutilized resources for improving health outcomes for gout patients.
Background: There is evidence of disparities in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care providers. The purpose of this study was to examine confidence receiving and recommending COVID-19 vaccines by health care provider type and race/ethnicity. Methods: This mixed methods study involved a cross-sectional survey and qualitative, semi-structured interviews from March to May 2021 among a sample of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and pharmacists. These workers were recruited through voluntary response sampling from an integrated health system in Southern California. The primary dependent variables were (a) confidence in vaccine safety, (b) confidence in vaccine effectiveness, and (c) intent to recommend the vaccine to others. The primary independent variables were health care provider type and race/ethnicity. Findings: A total of 2,948 providers completed the survey. Nurses relative to physicians were 15% less likely to perceive the COVID-19 vaccine to be safe (risk ratio [RR] = 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83–0.87); 27% less likely to perceive the vaccine to prevent COVID-19 (RR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76); and 11% less likely to recommend the vaccine to others (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.87–0.91). Hispanic/Latinx providers were 10% less likely to perceive the vaccine to prevent COVID-19 (RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.83–0.98) relative to White providers. Qualitative themes included: No need for vaccine; distrusting vaccine research and roll-out; caretaking barriers; uncertainty and potential to change one’s mind; framing vaccine decisions around personal beliefs. Conclusions & Application to Practice: Health care workplaces should consider interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination among their workers, including education and mandatory vaccination policies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.