SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are powerful tools to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, but vaccine hesitancy threatens these vaccines' effectiveness. To address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and ensure equitable distribution, understanding the extent of and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy is critical. We report the results of a large nationwide study conducted December 2020-January 2021 of 34,470 users from COVID-19-focused smartphone-based app How We Feel on their willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Nineteen percent of respondents expressed vaccine hesitancy, the majority being undecided. Vaccine hesitancy was significant among females, younger people, minority and low-income communities, healthcare and essential workers, rural residents, geographical regions with higher COVID-19 burden, those who did not use protective measures, and those who did not receive COVID-19 tests. Our findings support the need for targeted efforts to develop education and outreach programs to overcome vaccine hesitancy and improve equitable access, diversity, and inclusion in the national response to COVID-19.

Knowledge on the relationship between different biological modalities (RNA, chromatin, etc.) can help further our understanding of the processes through which biological components interact. The ready availability of multi-omics datasets has led to the development of numerous methods for identifying sources of common variation across biological modalities. However, evaluation of the performance of these methods, in terms of consistency, has been difficult because most methods are unsupervised. We present a comparison of sparse multiple canonical correlation analysis (Sparse mCCA), angle-based joint and individual variation explained (AJIVE) and multi-omics factor analysis (MOFA) using a cross-validation approach to assess overfitting and consistency. Both large and small-sample datasets were used to evaluate performance, and a permuted null dataset was used to identify overfitting through the application of our framework and approach. In the large-sample setting, we found that all methods demonstrated consistency and lack of overfitting; however, in the small-sample size setting, AJIVE provided the most stable results. We provide an R package so that our framework and approach can be applied to evaluate other methods and datasets.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Patients with rare and/or care-intensive conditions, such as Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), can pose challenges to their healthcare providers (HCPs). The current study used the BITTEN framework1 to code EDS patients’ open-ended written responses to a needs survey to determine their self-reported prevalence of healthcare institutional betrayal and its link with their expressed symptoms, provider perceptions, unmet needs, and on-going healthcare-related expectations. Methods: Patients with EDS ( n = 234) were recruited via a rare disease electronic mailing list and snowball sampling. A total of one-hundred and six respondents (45.3%) endorsed having unmet healthcare-related needs; of these, 104 (99%) completed an open-ended prompt about these needs. Responses were coded for components of BITTEN, a framework designed to link patients’ past, current, and future healthcare-related experiences in a trauma informed manner. Results: Many respondents with ongoing needs endorsed experiencing past institutional and provider betrayal (43%; n = 45), current mental health symptoms (91.4%; n = 95), negative expectations for future healthcare (40.4%; n = 62), and a lack of trust in their healthcare provider (22.1%; n = 23). There were no significant differences in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)/anxiety, depression/sadness, or isolative symptoms between respondents coded for institutional betrayal ( n = 45) compared with those not ( n = 59). However, EDS respondents reporting institutional betrayal were significantly more likely to self-report anger and irritability symptoms, a lack of trust in their HCPs, and more negative expectations for future healthcare than those not reporting institutional betrayal. Discussion/conclusions: The frequent spontaneous reporting of past healthcare betrayals among patients with EDS implies the need for trauma-informed care and provider education. Given that experiences of institutional betrayal are associated with increased anger and irritability, as well as with negative expectations for future healthcare interactions, efforts to repair healthcare provider and system-wide relationship ruptures might have positive healthcare consequences. Plain language summary Reports of Institutional and Provider Betrayal and Links with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Patients’ Current Symptoms, Unmet Needs and Future Healthcare Expectations What is EDS? Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) refers to a group of rare genetic connective tissue disorders that are primarily characterized by skin hyperelasticity, joint hypermobility, and tissue fragility. Connective tissue is largely responsible for the structural integrity of our bodies, and there are several EDS subtypes which each describe a specific connective tissue problem. In addition, there is significant overlap between EDS types and other kinds of connective tissue disorders. As a result, recognizing, diagnosing, and treating EDS is often challenging. What is Institutional betrayal? Institutional Betrayal here refers to a harmful action (i.e. commission) or lack of action (i.e. omission) on the part of a healthcare institution, individual provider/healthcare team, or insurance company. When a patient trusts that the healthcare system will act in their best interest, and trust is violated, institutional betrayal occurs. What is BITTEN? BITTEN is an acronym for Betrayal, Indicator, Trauma symptoms, Trust, Expectations, and Needs. It is a framework meant to capture previous problematic healthcare-related experiences in EDS patients, then to consider how those experiences influence a patient’s current symptoms, provider trust, future expectations in healthcare encounters, and on-going needs. Why was this done? EDS, like many rare diseases, is hard to recognize and manage. We aim to: Give voice to EDS patients and their common unmet needs and healthcare-related expectations. Highlight how healthcare providers can apply BITTEN to improve care practices in rare disease patient encounters. What did we do? Using a newly articulated applied model of healthcare, BITTEN, we analyzed the open-ended responses of EDS patients describing their unmet emotional and mental health needs. What did we find? Nearly half of EDS patients who indicated they had unmet needs reported experiencing institutional betrayal. EDS patients who reported institutional betrayal also expressed anger, a lack of trust in healthcare providers, negative expectations for future healthcare, and more unmet needs more frequently than EDS patients who did not report institutional betrayal. What does this mean? The EDS patients in this sample were not directly asked if they had experienced institutional betrayal, so the exact prevalence is not known. Furthermore, responses were obtained voluntarily via the internet, so caution should be taken when generalizing these findings. However, results indicate that too many patients with EDS have experienced healthcare betrayals; these experiences are associated with current anger and negative expectations for future healthcare interactions. The prevalence of past negative healthcare experiences, along with current unmet needs and future negative healthcare expectations in EDS patients who have experienced institutional betrayal, highlights the need for healthcare providers to tend to these experiences, mend patient-provider barriers, and provide higher quality healthcare.

This review aimed to identify U.S.-based, construct-validated measures of bystander intervention. Following PRISMA-P guidelines, electronic databases were searched, and emails were solicited identifying 8,559 articles for title screening. Abstracts and full texts were double screened, resulting in 24 scales meeting inclusion criteria: (a) measured a bystander-related construct in a situation where there was a potential for actual or perceived imminent physical or emotional harm, (b) written in English, and (c) statistically validated on U.S. samples. Most scales addressed the domain of interpersonal violence (67%), with fewer relating to bias/bullying (8.2%), mental health crises (12.5%), and substance use (12.5%). Most scales (71%) assessed the “take action” step of the situational model. The modal construct represented was intent/willingness/likelihood to intervene (50%). The average number of items on a scale was 14, and most (79%) provided Likert-style response options. None of the validated scales assessing behavior first accounted for an opportunity. Sample sizes ranged from 163 to 3,397, with the modal setting from colleges. Overall, samples were young (21.8 years old), White (75%), women (64%), and heterosexual (89%). Results indicate the need to validate additional measures that capture the “interpreting the situation as problematic” step of the situational model. Scales also need to be validated using diverse samples, particularly within the mental health crisis domain. Across all domains, validated measures need to be developed that first account for an opportunity when measuring actual bystander behavior. The information gleaned can be used to assist researchers in selecting measures and guide future measure development.

Background: Grieving adults raising parentally-bereaved minor children experience persistently elevated symptoms of depression and grief. However, the factors associated with their mental health outcomes are not well understood. Aim: To investigate the psychosocial and demographic characteristics associated with grief distress and depressive symptom severity in bereaved adults with minor children. Design: Cross-sectional, web-based survey. Setting/participants: Eight hundred forty-five bereaved adults raising minor (age <18 years) children who had experienced the death of a co-parent. Primary outcomes were grief distress (Prolonged Grief Disorder-13), depressive symptoms (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Depression), and widowed parenting self-efficacy (WPSES). Results: Mean grief scores were 33.5; mean depression scores were 58.3. Among the 690 individuals more than 6 months bereaved, 132 (19.3%) met criteria for prolonged grief disorder. In adjusted models, participants reporting higher grief scores were more recently bereaved, identified as mothers, non-Caucasian, had lower education and income, and had not anticipated their co-parent’s death. The statistical modeling results for depression scores were similar to grief scores except that depression was not associated with anticipation of co-parent death. Parents reporting lower WPSES scores had higher grief and depression scores. Retrospective assessments of more intense parenting worries at the time of co-parent death were also associated with higher grief and depression scores. Conclusions: For bereaved adults with minor children, unanticipated co-parent death was linked with higher grief distress but not symptoms of depression. Addressing parenting concerns may represent a common pathway for improving the mental health of parentally-bereaved families.

No abstract