IMPORTANCEThe COVID-19 pandemic has had disproportionate effects on racial and ethnic minority communities, where preexisting clinical and social conditions amplify health and social disparities. Many of these communities report lower vaccine confidence and lower receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding factors that influence the multifaceted decision-making process for vaccine uptake is critical for narrowing COVID-19-related disparities.OBJECTIVE To examine factors that members of multiethnic communities at high risk for COVID-19 infection and morbidity report as contributing to vaccine decision-making. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis qualitative study used community-engaged methods to conduct virtual focus groups from November 16, 2020, to January 28, 2021, with Los Angeles County residents. Potential participants were recruited through email, video, and telephone outreach to community partner networks. Focus groups were stratified by self-identified race and ethnicity as well as age. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThemes were categorized by contextual, individual, and vaccine-specific influences using the World Health Organization's Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix categories.RESULTS A total of 13 focus groups were conducted with 70 participants (50 [71.4%] female) who self-identified as American Indian (n = 17 [24.3%]), Black/African American (n = 17 [24.3%]), Filipino/ Filipina (n = 11 [15.7%]), Latino/Latina (n = 15 [21.4%]), or Pacific Islander (n = 10 [14.3%]). A total of 39 participants (55.7%) were residents from high-poverty zip codes, and 34 (48.6%) were essential workers. The resulting themes included policy implications for equitable vaccine distribution: contextual influences (unclear and unreliable information, concern for inequitable access or differential treatment, references to mistrust from unethical research studies, accessibility and accommodation barriers, eligibility uncertainty, and fears of politicization or pharmaceutical industry influence); social and group influences (inadequate exposure to trusted messengers or information, altruistic motivations, medical mistrust, and desire for autonomy); and vaccination-specific influences (need for vaccine evidence by subpopulation, misconceptions on vaccine development, allocation ambiguity, vaccination safety preferences, the importance of perceiving vaccine equity, burden of vaccine scheduling, cost uncertainty, and desire for practitioner recommendation). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this qualitative study, participants reported a number of factors that affected their vaccine decision-making, including concern for inequitable vaccine access.Participants endorsed policy recommendations and strategies to promote vaccine confidence. These results suggest that support of informed deliberation and attainment of vaccine equity will require (continued) Key Points Question What factors do members of multiethnic communities at high risk for COVID-19 infection and morbidity in Los Angeles Co...

IMPORTANCE: Intensive lifestyle change (e.g., the Diabetes Prevention Program) and metformin reduce type 2 diabetes risk among patients with prediabetes. However, real-world uptake remains low. Shared decision-making (SDM) may increase awareness and help patients select and follow through with informed options for diabetes prevention that are aligned with their preferences. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of a prediabetes SDM intervention. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty primary care clinics within a large regional health system. PARTICIPANTS: Overweight/obese adults with prediabetes (BMI ≥ 24 kg/m 2 and HbA1c 5.7-6.4%) were enrolled from 10 SDM intervention clinics. Propensity score matching was used to identify control patients from 10 usual care clinics. INTERVENTION: Intervention clinic patients were invited to participate in a face-to-face SDM visit with a pharmacist who used a decision aid (DA) to describe prediabetes and four possible options for diabetes prevention: DPP, DPP ± metformin, metformin only, or usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary endpoint was uptake of DPP (≥ 9 sessions), metformin, or both strategies at 4 months. Secondary endpoint was weight change (lbs.) at 12 months. RESULTS: Uptake of DPP and/or metformin was higher among SDM participants (n = 351) than controls receiving usual care (n = 1028; 38% vs. 2%, p < .001). At 12-month follow-up, adjusted weight loss (lbs.) was greater among SDM participants than controls (− 5.3 vs. − 0.2, p < .001). LIMITATIONS: Absence of DPP supplier participation data for matched patients in usual care clinics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A prediabetes SDM intervention led by pharmacists increased patient engagement in evidence-based options for diabetes prevention and was associated with significantly greater uptake of DPP and/or metformin at 4 months and weight loss at 12 months. Prediabetes SDM may be a promising approach to enhance prevention efforts among patients at increased risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at clinicaltrails.gov (NCT02384109)).

The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is a 12-month behavior change program designed to increase physical activity and improve dietary patterns among patients at risk for Type 2 diabetes, in order to facilitate modest weight loss and improve cardio-metabolic profiles. It is unknown whether baseline patient activation is related to increased DPP uptake, and whether DPP attendance leads to subsequent improvement in patient activation. We analyzed data from 352 adult participants in the Prediabetes Informed Decisions and Education (PRIDE) trial of shared decision-making (SDM) in diabetes prevention, collected from November 2015 through September 2017. PRIDE participants completed baseline and 4-month follow-up surveys, including the Altarum Consumer Engagement (ACE) Measure™ of patient activation. We tracked DPP attendance over 8 months using data from partnering DPP providers. In multivariate models, we measured whether self-reported baseline activation was associated with DPP “uptake” (1+ session attended) or DPP “attendance” (9+ sessions). We also examined whether DPP attendance was associated with change in activation at 4-months follow-up. We did not find an association between baseline activation and DPP uptake or attendance. However, we did find that DPP attendance was associated with an increase in the overall ACE score (6.68 points, 95% CI 1.97–11.39, p = 0.005) and increased activation in 2 of the 3 ACE subscales (Commitment and Informed Choice). Our finding of increased patient activation with DPP attendance suggests a mechanism for the improved health outcomes seen in DPP real-world translational studies. This work has important implications for diabetes prevention and other behavior change programs.

Objective. Latino adults in Los Angeles have experienced disproportionate cases, deaths, and socioeconomic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. This qualitative study aimed to explore community perspectives on readiness for COVID-19 vaccination and to identify culturally tailored vaccine outreach strategies. Methods. We conducted virtual focus groups with Los Angeles County Latino/a residents via Zoom between December 2020 to January 2021, as the first COVID-19 vaccines were receiving Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Focus groups were facilitated in Spanish and English by bilingual members of the research team. Discussions were analyzed via Atlas.ti software using reflexive thematic analysis. Results. Three focus groups (n = 15; four to six people each; two Spanish focus groups; one English) were conducted. Thematic findings centered on Latino COVID-19 vaccine equity: (1) Disproportionate infection risk due to essential worker status and socioeconomic burdens, misinformation, and familial or cultural tensions (2) Concerns for inequitable vaccine access due to immigration fears and limited healthcare access, and (3) A need for community-centered COVID-19 vaccine outreach and access. Conclusions. Our study on early Latino adult reactions to vaccine roll-out suggests the need for outreach strategies centering on validating community hardships, combating dis-/misinformation through trusted sources, and addressing socio-economic needs impacted by the pandemic.

Background Many Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) translation efforts have been less effective for underresourced populations. In the cluster-randomized Prediabetes Informed Decision and Education (PRIDE) trial, which evaluated a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention for diabetes prevention, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black participants lost less weight than non-Hispanic White participants at 12-month follow-up. Objective To explore perspectives about weight loss from PRIDE participants of different racial and ethnic groups. Participants Sample of participants with prediabetes who were randomized to the PRIDE intervention arm (n=24). Approach We conducted semi-structured interviews within three groups stratified by DPP participation and % weight loss at 12 months: (DPP+/WL+, enrolled in DPP and lost >5% weight; DPP+/WL−, enrolled in DPP and lost <3% weight; DPP−/WL−, did not enroll in DPP and lost <3% weight). Each group was further subdivided on race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black (NHB), non-Hispanic White (NHW), Hispanic). Interviews were conducted on Zoom and transcripts were coded and analyzed with Dedoose. Key Results Compared to NHW participants, Hispanic and NHB participants more often endorsed weight loss barriers of limited time to make lifestyle changes due to long work and commute hours, inconvenient DPP class locations and offerings, and limited disposable income for extra weight loss activities. Conversely, facilitators of weight loss regardless of race and ethnicity included retirement or having flexible work schedules; being able to identify convenient DPP classes; having a strong, positive support system; and purchasing supplementary resources to support lifestyle change (e.g., gym memberships, one-on-one activity classes). Conclusions We found that NHB and Hispanic SDM participants report certain barriers to weight loss more commonly than NHW participants, particularly barriers related to limited disposable income and/or time constraints. Our findings suggest that increased lifestyle change support and flexible program delivery options may be needed to ensure equity in DPP reach, participant engagement, and outcomes.