Background: This study assessed psychosocial predictors of U.S. adults' willingness to get a future COVID-19 vaccine and whether these predictors differ under an emergency use authorization (EUA) release of the vaccine. Methods: A survey of 788 U.S. adults was conducted to explore the relationships between demographics and psychosocial predictors of intent to get a future COVID-19 vaccine as well as willingness to get such a vaccine under EUA. Results: Significant predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions were education, having insurance, scoring high on subjective norms, a positive attitude toward the vaccine, as well as high perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, high perceived benefits of the vaccine, scoring low on barriers to the vaccine, and scoring high on self-efficacy. Predictors of willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine under EUA were age, race/ethnicity, positive subjective norms, high perceived behavioral control, positive attitudes toward the vaccine, as well as high perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, high perceived benefits of the vaccine, low barriers to the vaccine, and scoring high on self-efficacy for getting the vaccine. Concerns about rushed vaccine development appear to reduce vaccine uptake intent, as well as willingness to get the vaccine under EUA. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine-related messages should both address concerns about the vaccine and its development and reinforce benefits of the vaccine (both factors significant in both models). Vaccine efforts may need to go beyond just communications campaigns correcting misinformation about a COVID-19 vaccine to also focus on re-establishing public trust in government agencies.

No abstract

No abstract

We analyzed Instagram posts about Zika by using the Health Belief Model. We found a high presence of threat messages, yet little engagement with these posts. Public health professionals should focus on posting messages to increase self-efficacy and benefits of protective behavior, especially when a vaccine becomes available.

Purpose The media has even been very critical of some East Asian countries’ use of digital contact-tracing to control Covid-19. For example, South Korea has been criticised for its use of privacy-infringing digital contact-tracing. However, whether their type of digital contact-tracing was unnecessarily harmful to the human rights of Korean citizens is open for debate. The purpose of this paper is to examine this criticism to see if Korea’s digital contact-tracing is ethically justifiable. Design/methodology/approach This paper will evaluate Korea’s digital contact-tracing through the lens of the four human rights principles to determine if their response is ethically justifiable. These four principles were originally outlined in the European Court of Human Rights, namely, necessary, proportional, scientifically valid and time-bounded (European Court of Human Rights 1950). Findings The paper will propose that while the use of Korea’s digital contact-tracing was scientifically valid and proportionate (albeit, in need for improvements), it meets the necessity requirement, but is too vague to meet the time-boundedness requirement. Originality/value The Covid-19 pandemic has proven to be one of the worst threats to human health and the global economy in the past century. There have been many different strategies to tackle the pandemic, from somewhat laissez-faire approaches, herd immunity, to strict draconian measures. Analysis of the approaches taken in the response to the pandemic is of high scientific value and this paper is one of the first to critically engage with one of these methods – digital contact-tracing in South Korea.

The Hispanic population in and around Richmond, Virginia, USA, has grown rapidly since 2000. The Richmond City Latino Needs Assessment emphasized this growth and also reported concerns regarding healthcare access. Schools of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing at Virginia Commonwealth University have partnered together with community organizations to develop and implement an interprofessional student service learning pilot program to meet community needs and provide an opportunity for enhanced learning. Community events allowed students to work on interprofessional teams to provide healthcare screenings and education to the Hispanic community. The program was evaluated by the use of a community service survey. Results indicated improved perceptions of student comfort with working with diverse patients, working on teams, and patient-centered care, as well as statistically significant improvements in student understanding of health care access and barriers, community needs, and social determinants of health. Results suggest that this community-based service-learning interprofessional experience was critical in student learning.

As COVID-19 vaccines become available to the public, there will be a massive worldwide distribution effort. Vaccine distribution has historically been unequal primarily due to the inability of nations with developing economies to purchase enough vaccine to fully vaccinate their populations. Inequitable access to COVID-19 vaccines will not just cause humanitarian suffering, it will likely also be associated with increased economic suffering worldwide. This study focuses on the U.S. population and its beliefs about future COVID-19 vaccine donation by the U.S. to low- and middle-income countries. This study carried out a survey among 788 U.S. adults. Variables include demographics, COVID-19 vaccine priority status, COVID-19 vaccine donation beliefs, and Social Dominance Orientation. Analyses showed that older respondents were both less likely to endorse higher levels of COVID-19 vaccine donations and were more likely to want to wait until all in the U.S. who want the vaccine have received it; those who identified as Democrats were more likely to endorse higher levels of future COVID-19 vaccine donation than Republicans; and those scoring higher on SDO were both less likely to endorse higher levels of COVID-19 vaccine donations as well as more likely to want to wait until all in the U.S. who want the vaccine have received it. Policymakers, as well as healthcare providers and public health communication professionals, should give consideration to those messages most likely to engender support for global prevention efforts with each audience segment.

ImportanceNew dissemination methods are needed to engage physicians in evidence-based continuing medical education (CME).ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of social media in engaging physicians in non-industry-sponsored CME.DesignWe tested the effect of different media platforms (e-mail, Facebook, paid Facebook and Twitter), CME topics, and different “hooks” (e.g., Q&A, clinical pearl and best evidence) on driving clicks to a landing site featuring non-industry sponsored CME. We modelled the effects of social media platform, CME topic, and hook using negative binomial regression on clicks to a single landing site. We used clicks to landing site adjusted for exposure and message number to calculate rate ratios. To understand how physicians interact with CME content on social media, we also conducted interviews with 10 physicians.SettingThe National Physicians Alliance (NPA) membership.ParticipantsNPA e-mail recipients, Facebook followers and friends, and Twitter followers.Main Outcomes and MeasuresClicks to the NPA’s CME landing site.ResultsOn average, 4,544 recipients received each message. Messages generated a total of 592 clicks to the landing site, for a rate of 5.4 clicks per 1000 recipients exposed. There were 5.4 clicks from e-mail, 11.9 clicks from Facebook, 5.5 clicks from paid Facebook, and 6.9 clicks from Twitter to the landing site for 1000 physicians exposed to each of 4 selected CME modules. A Facebook post generated 2.3x as many clicks to the landing site as did an e-mail after controlling for participant exposure, hook type and CME topic (p<0.001). Twitter posts (p = 0.13) and paid Facebook posts (p = 0.06) were not statistically different from e-mail in generating clicks to the landing site. Use of different hooks to engage physicians had no impact on clicks to the landing site. Interviews with physicians suggested that social media might not be a preferred vehicle for disseminating CME.ConclusionsSocial media has a modest impact on driving traffic to evidence-based CME options. Facebook had a superior effect on driving physician web traffic to evidence-based CME compared to other social media platforms and email.