ObjectivesEssential healthcare workers (HCW) uniquely serve as both COVID-19 healers and, potentially, as carriers of SARS-CoV-2. We assessed COVID-19-related stigma and bullying against HCW controlling for social, psychological, medical and community variables.DesignWe nested an analytical cross-sectional study of COVID-19-related stigma and bullying among HCW within a larger mixed-methods effort assessing COVID-19-related lived experience and impact. Adjusted OR (aOR) and 95% CIs evaluated the association between working in healthcare settings and experience of COVID-19-related bullying and stigma, controlling for confounders. Thematic qualitative analysis provided insight into lived experience of COVID-19-related bullying.SettingWe recruited potential participants in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) through Amazon Mechanical Turk’s online workforce and Facebook.ParticipantsOur sample included 7411 people from 173 countries who were aged 18 years or over.FindingsHCW significantly experienced more COVID-19-related bullying after controlling for the confounding effects of job-related, personal, geographic and sociocultural variables (aOR: 1.5; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0). HCW more frequently believed that people gossip about others with COVID-19 (OR: 2.2; 95% CI 1.9 to 2.6) and that people with COVID-19 lose respect in the community (OR: 2.3; 95% CI 2.0 to 2.7), both which elevate bullying risk (OR: 2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.2, and OR: 3.5; 95% CI 2.9 to 4.2, respectively). The lived experience of COVID-19-related bullying relates frequently to public identities as HCW traverse through the community, intersecting with other domains (eg, police, racism, violence).InterpretationAfter controlling for a range of confounding factors, HCW are significantly more likely to experience COVID-19-related stigma and bullying, often in the intersectional context of racism, violence and police involvement in community settings.

Although information access control models have been developed and applied to various applications, few of the previous works have addressed the issue of managing information access in the combined context of team collaboration and workflow. To facilitate this requirement, we have enhanced the Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) model through formulating universal constraints, defining bridging entities and contributing attributes, extending access permissions to include workflow contexts, synthesizing a role-based access delegation model to target on specific objects, and developing domain ontologies as instantiations of the general model to particular applications. We have successfully applied this model to the New York State HIV Clinical Education Initiative (CEI) project to address the specific needs of information management in collaborative processes. An initial evaluation has shown this model achieved a high level of agreement with an existing system when applied to 4576 cases (kappa=0.801). Comparing to a reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of the enhanced RBAC model were at the level of 97-100%. These results indicate that the enhanced RBAC model can be effectively used for information access management in context of team collaboration and workflow to coordinate clinical education programs. Future research is required to incrementally develop additional types of universal constraints, to further investigate how the workflow context and access delegation can be enriched to support the various needs on information access management in collaborative processes, and to examine the generalizability of the enhanced RBAC model for other applications in clinical education, biomedical research, and patient care.

BackgroundDeterminants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance are complex; how perceptions of the effectiveness of science, healthcare and government impact personal COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is unclear, despite all three domains providing critical roles in development, funding and provision, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccine.ObjectiveTo estimate impact of perception of science, healthcare systems, and government along with sociodemographic, psychosocial, and cultural characteristics on vaccine acceptance.DesignWe conducted a global nested analytical cross-sectional study of how the perceptions of healthcare, government and science systems have impacted COVID-19 on vaccine acceptance.SettingGlobal Facebook, Instagram and Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) users from 173 countries.Participants7411 people aged 18 years or over, and able to read English, Spanish, Italian, or French.MeasurementsWe used Χ2 analysis and logistic regression-derived adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs to evaluate the relationship between effectiveness perceptions and vaccine acceptance controlling for other factors. We used natural language processing and thematic analysis to analyse the role of vaccine-related narratives in open-ended explanations of effectiveness.ResultsAfter controlling for confounding, attitude toward science was a strong predictor of vaccine acceptance, more so than other attitudes, demographic, psychosocial or COVID-19-related variables (aOR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.8 to 2.5). The rationale for science effectiveness was dominated by vaccine narratives, which were uncommon in other domains.LimitationsThis study did not include participants from countries where Facebook and Amazon mTurk are not available, and vaccine acceptance reflected intention rather than actual behaviour.ConclusionsAs our findings show, vaccine-related issues dominate public perception of science’s impact around COVID-19, and this perception of science relates strongly to the decision to obtain vaccination once available.

The WHO/UNAIDS suggests that digital tools – such as social media and online training opportunities, can connect providers in difficult social and medical contexts to providers elsewhere for guidance, support, and advice. Social media is emerging as an innovative option for connecting clinicians together and for enhancing access to professional resources. In Romania, characterized by an atypical HIV/AIDS epidemic which is further challenged by a range of access complexities, it is unclear how often – and which kinds of – social media clinicians use to support clinical care. This study was conducted to ascertain social media use for clinical providers based in two regions of Romania (Transylvania and Moldavia) who face distance challenges that could potentially be alleviated by social media interaction. We used an online survey to understand what social media are currently popular and perceived to be useful for learning clinical information. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted. Providers indicated Facebook and WhatsApp were the most common social media platforms, with 62% and 45% reporting daily use, respectively. Providers who used one media platform were significantly more likely to use another social media platform (p < .05). These data are helpful for creating an online training platform on HIV/AIDS for Romanian clinical providers.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread public health measures to reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality attributed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. While much research and focus surrounds COVID-19 vaccine development, testing, and supportive management, little is known about the determinants of non-medical, personal impact of COVID-19 prevention policies. We aimed to understand determinants of non-medical COVID-19 impact and to account for its multileveled, intersectional nature of associations.MethodsThis cross-sectional, multi-level, convergent mixed-methods study assessed a range of beliefs, practices, and experiences relating to COVID-19. We recruited a global sample (n=7,411) using both Facebook and Amazon mTURK platforms. We constructed a novel data-driven non-medical COVID-19 Impact Score and four subcomponents (“Personal Action,” “Supply-related,” “Cancellations,” and “Livelihood” impacts). We used generalized estimating equation models with identity link functions to determine concomitant association of individual, household, and country-level variables on the impact scores. We also classified 20,015 qualitative excerpts from 6859 respondents using an 80-code codebook.ResultsTotal and component impact scores varied significantly by region with Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean observing the highest impact scores. Multilevel modeling indicated that individual-level sociocultural variables accounted for much of this variation with COVID-related worry, knowledge, struggles in accessing food and supplies, and worsening mental health most strongly associated with non-medical impact. Family responsibilities, personal COVID medical experience, and health locus of control – in addition to country-level variables reflecting social and health challenge – were also significantly and independently associated with non-medical impact.DiscussionNon-medical personal impact of COVID-19 affects most people internationally, largely in response to shutdowns, implementing prevention requirements, and through economic consequences. In the context where most of the world’s population does not have direct medical experience with COVID-19, this phenomena of non-medical impact is profound, and likely impacts sustainability of public health interventions aimed at containing COVID-19.