The supply of any successful vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will initially be limited. Who should have access first? The US National Academy of Medicine (NAM) has proposed a framework for COVID-19 vaccine allocation. 1 Others have discussed distributing vaccine among countries. 2 This Viewpoint delineates how ethical values should guide prioritization of a COVID-19 vaccine among populations within the US. The discussion may be relevant to other countries as well.In vaccine prioritization, ethics interacts with important scientific and practical questions. These include whether a vaccine will prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission and what medical factors affect vaccine effectiveness, dosing, and durability, as well as COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes among those not vaccinated. To the extent that a vaccine does not prevent transmission, but just reduces the severity of illness, its effect and distribution should resemble therapeutics that only protect direct recipients. 3

Racial and ethnic minorities bear a disproportionate burden of the diabetes epidemic; they have higher prevalence rates, worse diabetes control, and higher rates of complications. This article reviews the effectiveness of health care interventions at improving health outcomes and/or reducing diabetes health disparities among racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes. Forty-two studies met inclusion criteria. On average, these health care interventions improved the quality of care for racial/ethnic minorities, improved health outcomes (such as diabetes control and reduced diabetes complications), and possibly reduced health disparities in quality of care. There is evidence supporting the use of interventions that target patients (primarily through culturally tailored programs), providers (especially through one-on-one feedback and education), and health systems (particularly with nurse case managers and nurse clinicians). More research is needed in the areas of racial/ethnic minorities other than African Americans and Latinos, health disparity reductions, long-term diabetes-related outcomes, and the sustainability of health care interventions over time.

Stigmatizing language used in medical records to describe patients can influence subsequent physicians-in-training in terms of their attitudes towards the patient and their medication prescribing behavior. This is an important and overlooked pathway by which bias can be propagated from one clinician to another. Attention to the language used in medical records may help to promote patient-centered care and to reduce healthcare disparities for stigmatized populations.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an important component of patient-centered healthcare and is positively associated with improved health outcomes (e.g. diabetes and hypertension control). In shared decision-making, patients and physicians engage in bidirectional dialogue about patients' symptoms and treatment options, and select treatment plans that address patient preferences. Existing research shows that African-Americans experience SDM less often than whites, a fact which may contribute to racial disparities in diabetes outcomes. Yet little is known about the reasons for racial disparities in shared decision-making. We explored patient perceptions of how race may influence SDM between African-American patients and their physicians. We conducted in-depth interviews (n=24) and five focus groups (n= 27) among a purposeful sample of African-American diabetes patients aged over 21 years, at an urban academic medical center in Chicago. Each interview/focus group was audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and imported into Atlas.ti software. Coding was conducted iteratively; each transcription was independently coded by two research team members. Although there was heterogeneity in patients' perceptions about the influence of race on SDM, in each of the SDM domains (information-sharing, deliberation/physician recommendations, and decision-making), participants identified a range of race-related issues that may influence SDM. Participants identified physician bias/discrimination and/or cultural discordance as issues that may influence physician-related SDM behaviors (e.g. less likely to share information such as test results and more likely to be domineering with African-American patients). They identified mistrust of white physicians, negative attitudes and internalized racism as patient-related issues that may influenceCorresponding Author E-Mail: mpeek@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. African-American patients' SDM behaviors (e.g. less forthcoming with physicians about health information, more deference to physicians, less likely to adhere to treatment regimens). This study suggests that race-related patient and physician-related barriers may serve as significant barriers to shared decision-making between African-American patients and their physicians. Finding innovative ways to address such communication barriers is an important area of future research. NIH Public Access

No abstract

Barriers/facilitators of SDM exist among African-Americans with diabetes, which can be effectively addressed in the outpatient setting. Primary care physicians, particularly academic internists, may be uniquely situated to address these barriers/facilitators and train future physicians to do so as well.

Purpose:We pilot-tested a text message-based diabetes care program in an urban African-American population in which automated text messages were sent to participants with personalized medication, foot care, and appointment reminders and text messages were received from participants on adherence. Methods:Eighteen patients participated in a 4-week pilot study. Baseline surveys collected data about demographics, historical cell phone usage, and adherence to core diabetes care measures. Exit interview surveys (using closecoded and open-ended questions) were administered to patients at the end of the program. A 1-month follow-up interview was conducted surveying patients on perceived self-efficacy. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare baseline survey responses about self-management activities to those at the pilot's end and at 1-month follow-up. Results:Eighteen urban African-American participants completed the pilot study. The average age was 55 and the average number of years with diabetes was 8. Half the participants were initially uncomfortable with text messaging. Example messages include "Did you take your diabetes medications today" and "How many times did you check your feet for wounds this week?" Participants averaged 220 text messages with the system, responded to messages 80% of the time, and on average responded within 6 minutes. Participants strongly agreed that text messaging was easy to perform and helped with diabetes self-care. Missed medication doses decreased from 1.6 per week to 0.6 (p = .003). Patient confidence in diabetes self-management was significantly increased during and 1 month after the pilot (p = .002, p = .008). Conclusions:Text messaging may be a feasible and useful approach to improve diabetes self-management in urban African Americans.

Even with the best health care available, patients with chronic illnesses typically spend no more than a few hours a year in a health care setting, while their outcomes are largely determined by their activities during the remaining 5,000 waking hours of the year. As a widely available, low-cost technology, mobile phones are a promising tool to use in engaging patients in behavior change and facilitating self-care between visits. We examined the impact of a six-month mobile health (mHealth) demonstration project among adults with diabetes who belonged to an academic medical center’s employee health plan. In addition to pre-post improvements in glycemic control (p = 0.01) and patients’ satisfaction with overall care (p = 0.04), we observed a net cost savings of 8.8 percent. Those early results suggest that mHealth programs can support health care organizations’ pursuit of the triple aim of improving patients’ experiences with care, improving population health, and reducing the per capita cost of health care.