Smoking Status, Nicotine Medication, Vaccination, and COVID-19 Hospital Outcomes: Findings from the COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin (CEC-UW) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Available evidence is mixed concerning associations between smoking status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Effects of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and vaccination status on COVID-19 outcomes in smokers are unknown. METHODS: Electronic health record data from 104 590 COVID-19 patients hospitalized February 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 in 21 U.S. health systems were analyzed to assess associations of smoking status, in-hospital NRT prescription, and vaccination status with in-hospital death and ICU admission. RESULTS: Current (n = 7764) and never smokers (n = 57 454) did not differ on outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, and comorbidities. Former (vs never) smokers (n = 33 101) had higher adjusted odds of death (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17) and ICU admission (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). Among current smokers, NRT prescription was associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82). Vaccination effects were significantly moderated by smoking status; vaccination was more strongly associated with reduced mortality among current (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66) and former smokers (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57) than for never smokers (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.79). Vaccination was associated with reduced ICU admission more strongly among former (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83) than never smokers (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Former but not current smokers hospitalized with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with better hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients, especially current and former smokers. NRT during COVID-19 hospitalization may reduce mortality for current smokers. IMPLICATIONS: Prior findings regarding associations between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease outcomes have been inconsistent. This large cohort study suggests potential beneficial effects of nicotine replacement therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in current smokers and outsized benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in current and former smokers. Such findings may influence clinical practice and prevention efforts and motivate additional research that explores mechanisms for these effects.

Expressive Interviewing Agents to Support Health-Related Behavior Change: A Study of COVID-19 Behaviors.

BACKGROUND: Expressive writing and motivational interviewing are well-known approaches to help patients cope with stressful life events. While these methods are often applied by human counselors, it is less well understood if an automated AI approach can benefit patients. Providing an automated method would help expose a wider range of people to the possible benefits of motivational interviewing, with lower cost and more adaptability to sudden events like the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This study presents an automated writing system and evaluates possible outcomes among participants with respect to behavior related to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We developed a rule-based dialogue system for "Expressive Interviewing" to elicit writing from participants on the subject of how COVID-19 has impacted their lives. The system prompts participants to describe their life experiences and emotions, and provides topic-specific prompts in response to participants' use of topical keywords. In May-June 2021, we recruited participants (N=151) via Prolific to complete either the Expressive Interviewing task or a control task. We surveyed participants immediately before the intervention, immediately after, and again two weeks after the intervention. We measured participants' self-reported stress, general mental health, COVID-related health behavior, and social behavior. RESULTS: Participants generally wrote long responses during the task (53.3 words per response). In aggregate, task participants experienced a significant decrease in stress in the short-term (~23% decrease, P<.001) and a slight difference in social activity compared to the control group (P=.030). No significant differences in short-term or long-term outcome were detected between participant sub-group (e.g., male versus female participants), except for some within-condition differences by ethnicity (e.g., higher social activity among African American people participating in Expressive Interviewing vs. participants of other ethnicities). For short-term effects, participants showed different outcomes based on their writing. Using more anxiety-related words was correlated with a greater short-term decrease in stress (R=-0.264, P<.001), and using more positive emotion words was correlated with a more meaningful experience (R=0.243, P=.001). As for long-term effects, writing with more lexical diversity was correlated with an increase in social activity (R=0.266, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Expressive Interviewing participants exhibited short term positive changes in mental health, but not long-term, and some linguistic metrics of writing style were correlated with positive change in behavior. While there were no significant long-term effects observed, the positive short term effect suggests that the Expressive Interviewing intervention could be used in cases where a patient lacks access to traditional therapy and needs a short-term solution.

Relations of Current and Past Cancer with Severe Outcomes among 104,590 Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: The COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: There is mixed evidence about the relations of current versus past cancer with severe COVID-19 outcomes and how they vary by patient and cancer characteristics. METHODS: Electronic health record data of 104,590 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were obtained from 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were predicted from current and past cancer diagnoses. Moderation by patient characteristics, vaccination status, cancer type, and year of the pandemic was examined. RESULTS: 6.8% of the patients had current (n = 7,141) and 6.5% had past (n = 6,749) cancer diagnoses. Current cancer predicted both severe outcomes but past cancer did not; adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for mortality were 1.58 (95% CI: 1.46, 1.70) and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.13), respectively. Mortality rates decreased over the pandemic but the incremental risk of current cancer persisted, with the increment being larger among younger vs. older patients. Prior COVID-19 vaccination reduced mortality generally and amongst those with current cancer (aOR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Current cancer, especially amongst younger patients, posed a substantially increased risk for death and ICU admission among COVID-19 patients; prior COVID-19 vaccination mitigated the risk associated with current cancer. Past history of cancer was not associated with higher risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes for most cancer types. IMPACT: This study clarifies the characteristics that modify the risk associated with cancer on severe COVID-19 outcomes across the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Mortality, intubation and ICU rates among 104,590 patients hospitalized at 21 United States health systems.

MAIN OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on how patient outcomes have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study characterizes changes in mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates during the first 20 months of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: University of Wisconsin researchers collected and harmonized electronic health record data from 1.1 million COVID-19 patients across 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. The analysis comprised data from 104,590 adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Inclusion criteria for the analysis were: (1) age 18 years or older; (2) COVID-19 ICD-10 diagnosis during hospitalization and/or a positive COVID-19 PCR test in a 14-day window (+/- 7 days of hospital admission); and (3) health system contact prior to COVID-19 hospitalization. Outcomes assessed were: (1) mortality (primary), (2) endotracheal intubation, and (3) ICU admission. RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE: The 104,590 hospitalized participants had a mean age of 61.7 years and were 50.4% female, 24% Black, and 56.8% White. Overall risk-standardized mortality (adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status and medical comorbidities) declined from 16% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 16% to 17%) early in the pandemic (February-April 2020) to 9% (CI: 9% to 10%) later (July-September 2021). Among subpopulations, males (vs. females), those on Medicare (vs. those on commercial insurance), the severely obese (vs. normal weight), and those aged 60 and older (vs. younger individuals) had especially high mortality rates both early and late in the pandemic. ICU admission and intubation rates also declined across these 20 months. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates improved markedly over the first 20 months of the pandemic among adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients although gains varied by subpopulation. These data provide important information on the course of COVID-19 and identify hospitalized patient groups at heightened risk for negative outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04506528 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04506528).

Online Search Behavior Related to COVID-19 Vaccines: Infodemiology Study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination against COVID-19 is an important public health strategy to address the ongoing pandemic. Examination of online search behavior related to COVID-19 vaccines can provide insights into the public's awareness, concerns, and interest regarding COVID-19 vaccination. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe online search behavior related to COVID-19 vaccines during the start of public vaccination efforts in the United States. METHODS: We examined Google Trends data from January 1, 2021, through March 16, 2021, to determine the relative search volume for vaccine-related searches on the internet. We also examined search query log data for COVID-19 vaccine-related searches and identified 5 categories of searches: (1) general or other information, (2) vaccine availability, (3) vaccine manufacturer, (4) vaccine side-effects and safety, and (5) vaccine myths and conspiracy beliefs. In this paper, we report on the proportion and trends for these different categories of vaccine-related searches. RESULTS: In the first quarter of 2021, the proportion of all web-based search queries related to COVID-19 vaccines increased from approximately 10% to nearly 50% of all COVID-19-related queries (P<.001). A majority of COVID-19 vaccine queries addressed vaccine availability, and there was a particularly notable increase in the proportion of queries that included the name of a specific pharmacy (from 6% to 27%; P=.01). Queries related to vaccine safety and side-effects (<5% of total queries) or specific vaccine-related myths (<1% of total queries) were uncommon, and the relative frequency of both types of searches decreased during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an increase in online search behavior related to COVID-19 vaccination in early 2021 along with an increase in the proportion of searches related to vaccine availability at pharmacies. These findings are consistent with an increase in public interest and intention to get vaccinated during the initial phase of public COVID-19 vaccination efforts.

Delayed Urological Cancer Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Urologists' Experience.

INTRODUCTION: The arrival of coronavirus disrupted health care systems and forced delays in cancer treatment. We explored the experience of urologists who had to delay their patients' cancer care. METHODS: Urologists who treat prostate, bladder, and renal cancers, selected through purposive sampling, responded to a survey about cancer treatment delay. They were asked about their practice setting, decision making and interactions with patients, and they were asked to reflect on their personal experience. A 0 to 10 point scale, modeled on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network' Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT), validated for cancer patients with cancer, was used to estimate physician distress. We used descriptive statistics to analyze survey results. RESULTS: Of the 64 participating urologists, 98% delayed surgical treatment; fewer delayed cases of advanced cancers (42% for ≥T3/T4 or Gleason ≥8 prostate cancers, 58% for muscle invasive bladder cancer, 61% for ≥T2 renal cancers). They reported feeling anxious (44%) and helpless (29%), and their median distress score was 5 (range 0-10). They relied on their own risk assessments (67%) and consulted colleagues (56%) and national guidelines (53%) when making treatment deferral decisions. They identified a number of concerns as they resumed surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a comparison to the NCCN-DT clinical cutoff distress level of 4, urologists experienced moderately high levels of distress as they delayed cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic and expressed concerns going forward. While the focus on patient care is paramount in a pandemic, it is important to recognize physician distress and develop practical and psychological strategies for distress mitigation.

Novel Predictors of COVID-19 Protective Behaviors Among US Adults: Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: A central component of the public health strategy to control the COVID-19 pandemic involves encouraging mask wearing and social distancing to protect individuals from acquiring and transmitting the virus. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the psychological factors that drive adoption or rejection of these protective behaviors, which can inform public health interventions to control the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of a representative sample of 1074 US adults and assessed three novel potential predictors of COVID-19 behaviors: trait reactance, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, and COVID-19 apocalypse beliefs. Key outcomes (dependent variables) included an index of COVID-19 protective behaviors, the number of trips taken from the home, and COVID-19 knowledge. RESULTS: In bivariate analyses, all three predictors were significantly correlated in the hypothesized direction with the three COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, each predictor was negatively (P<.01) correlated with the COVID-19 protective behaviors index and COVID-19 knowledge score, and positively correlated with trips taken from home per week (more of which was considered higher risk). COVID-19 protective behaviors and COVID-19 knowledge were significantly lower in the top median compared to the bottom median for all three predictors. In general, these findings remained significant after adjusting for all novel predictors plus age, gender, income, education, race, political party, and religiosity. Self-identified Republicans (vs other political affiliations) reported the highest values for each of the novel predictors. CONCLUSIONS: This study can inform the development of health communication interventions to encourage the adoption of COVID-19 protective behaviors. Interestingly, we found that higher scores of all three novel predictors were associated with lower COVID-19 knowledge, suggesting that lack of an accurate understanding of the virus may be driving some of these attitudes; although, it is also possible that these attributes may interfere with one's willingness or ability to seek and absorb accurate health information. These individuals may be particularly immune to accepting new information and yielding their beliefs. Health communication professionals may apply lessons learned from countering similar beliefs around climate change and vaccine hesitancy. Messages designed for individuals prone to reactance may be more effective if they minimize controlling language and emphasize the individual's independence in adopting these behavioral recommendations. Messaging for those who possess conspiracy beliefs should similarly not assume that providing evidence contrary to these beliefs will alone alter behavior. Other communication techniques such as rolling with resistance, a strategy used in motivational interviewing, may be helpful. Messaging for those with apocalyptic beliefs may require using religious leaders as the message source and using scripture that would support the adoption of COVID-19 protection behaviors.

Relationship Between Coronavirus-Related eHealth Literacy and COVID-19 Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices among US Adults: Web-Based Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: During a global pandemic, it is critical that the public is able to rapidly acquire new and accurate health information. The internet is a major source of health information. eHealth literacy is the ability of individuals to find, assess, and use health information available on the internet. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to assess coronavirus-related eHealth literacy and examine the relationship between eHealth literacy and COVID-19-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs). METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey of a representative sample of 1074 US adults. We adapted the 8-item eHealth Literacy Scale to develop the Coronavirus-Related eHealth Literacy Scale (CoV-eHEALS) to measure COVID-19-related knowledge, conspiracy beliefs, and adherence to protective behaviors (eg, wearing facial masks and social distancing). Our analyses identified sociodemographic associations with the participants' CoV-eHEALS scores and an association between the CoV-eHEALS measure and COVID-19 KAPs. RESULTS: The internal consistency of the adapted CoV-eHEALS measure was high (Cronbach α=.92). The mean score for the CoV-eHEALS was 29.0 (SD 6.1). A total of 29% (306/1074) of the survey participants were classified as having low coronavirus-related eHealth literacy (CoV-eHEALS score <26). Independent associations were found between CoV-eHEALS scores and ethnicity (standardized ß=-.083, P=.016 for Black participants) and education level (standardized ß=-.151, P=.001 for participants with high-school education or lower). Controlling for demographic characteristics, CoV-eHEALS scores demonstrated positive independent associations with knowledge (standardized ß=.168, P<.001) and adherence to protective behaviors (standardized ß=.241, P<.001) and a negative association with conspiracy beliefs (standardized ß=-.082, P=.009). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an estimate of coronavirus-related eHealth literacy among US adults. Our findings suggest that a substantial proportion of US adults have low coronavirus-related eHealth literacy and are thus at a greater risk of lower and less-protective COVID-19 KAPs. These findings highlight the need to assess and address eHealth literacy as part of COVID-19 control efforts. Potential strategies include improving the quality of health information about COVID-19 available on the internet, assisting or simplifying web-based search for information about COVID-19, and training to improve general or coronavirus-specific search skills.

Development of a coronavirus social distance attitudes scale.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to develop a scale to assess social distance attitudes related to COVID-19. METHODS: We performed an online national survey of US adults (n = 1,074) to assess social distance attitudes, COVID-19 related beliefs and behaviors, and demographics. We assessed scale structure using confirmatory factor analysis and evaluated internal consistency and validity. We assessed association of scale factors with respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported a hypothesized two-factor solution. Internal consistency was high for both positive (Alpha = 0.92) and negative (Alpha = 0.91) attitude factors. Analyses supported construct and predictive validity with expected associations between scale factors and perceived norms and behavior (e.g. trips out of the home). We found an interaction suggesting that holding highly negative attitudes reduced the effect of holding positive beliefs. Both attitude factors were related to age, gender, race/ethnicity, and political affiliation. Perceived COVID-19 risk (to others but not for self) and perceived severity were consistently associated with higher positive and lower negative attitudes. CONCLUSION: This COVID-19 Social Distance Attitude Scale contains positive and negative factors with high internal consistency and construct and predictive validity. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: A greater understanding and ongoing assessment of COVID-19 social distance attitudes could inform policymakers, researchers, and clinicians who seek to promote protective social distance behaviors.

Perspectives on Oncology-Specific Language During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

IMPORTANCE: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed the US health care system, causing an influx of patients who require resources. Many oncologists are having challenging conversations with their patients about how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting cancer care and may desire evidence-based communication guidance. OBJECTIVES: To identify the clinical scenarios that pose communication challenges, understand patient reactions to these scenarios, and develop a communication guide with sample responses. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study that was conducted at a single Midwestern academic medical center invited physicians to respond to a brief semistructured interview by email or telephone and then disseminated an anonymous online survey among patients with cancer. Oncology-specific, COVID-19-related clinical scenarios were identified by the physicians, and potential reactions to these scenarios were gleaned from the patient responses to the survey. Health communication experts were invited to participate in the iterative development of a communication guide, comprising 3 essential communication principles and strategies and informed by insights from physicians and patients. This study was conducted from March 25, 2020, to April 2, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Expert review, interviews, and surveys assessing challenging situations specific to cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Oncology-specific, COVID-19-related clinical scenarios from physician interviews; responses to each scenario from patient surveys; and applicable communication principles from health communication expert literature review. RESULTS: Of the 8 physicians who participated in interviews, 4 were men (50%) and 4 were women (50%). These physicians represented the following disciplines: internal medicine (n = 1), hematology/oncology (n = 2), radiation oncology (n = 3), and surgical oncology (n = 2). Their disease site specialization included cancers of the breast, head and neck, melanoma, and gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts. A total of 48 patients with cancer completed the online survey; no demographic information was collected from the patients. The physicians identified 8 oncology-specific, COVID-19-related scenarios in which communication might be challenging: (1) worse outcomes from COVID-19, (2) delay in cancer screening, (3) delay in diagnostic workup, (4) delay in initiation of treatment, (5) offer of nonstandard treatment, (6) treatment breaks, (7) delay in follow-up imaging or care, and (8) inability to be admitted into the hospital for management. Potential patient reactions to each of these scenarios were compiled from survey responses. For most scenarios, patient reactions involved anger, fear, and anxiety (eg, "I'm scared"; "This isn't fair. I am upset."). These emotional patient responses informed the selection of the 3 general communication principles, which suggested language and strategies that physicians can use to respond to patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this qualitative study, physicians and patients identified communication needs used by health communication experts to inform the development of a practical, evidence-based communication guide for oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic.