"I won't be a guinea pig": Rethinking public health communication and vaccine hesitancy in the context of COVID-19.

At the beginning of 2021, when Canada started distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, the unprecedented scope and severity of the pandemic led to very high levels of public awareness and attention, with Canadians actively seeking information. We argue that while there was continuous public health communication about COVID-19 and the newly available vaccines, these messages did not address the specific anxieties elicited by the novel vaccines, even as vaccination guidelines changed. Instead, public health messages about COVID-19 vaccines resembled those aimed at reducing vaccine hesitancy for routine immunization and did not sufficiently address the constant changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. In a context of heightened public concern and significant public attention, it is crucial for communicators to acknowledge that hesitancy is vaccine-specific, and that novel diseases and new vaccines produce specific concerns. Long-term strategies should address the novelty of the technology and of the risk, thoroughly explain the reasons for shifting vaccination guidelines, and leverage trusted sources, such as community leaders. Further, as COVID-19 vaccines become less effective against some of the more recent variants of the virus, vaccine messaging needs to be tailored to evolve with shifting realities to not lose productive gains in the COVID-19 vaccination campaign to date.

Rethinking risk communication in the hospital: infection prevention, risk perceptions, and lived experience.

BACKGROUND: We conceptualize infection prevention and control (IPAC) as a form of risk communication in the hospital and examine how doctors and nurses interpret and adopt IPAC measures in the wards. METHODS: We conducted a 20-week ethnography in a Canadian hospital in which we observed doctors' and nurses' routines, infection prevention practices, and barriers they encountered when following IPAC guidelines. After the observation period, we conducted interviews with doctors and nurses to gauge their perceptions of risk and how they make IPAC decisions while working in the wards. RESULTS: Doctors and nurses perceive the hospital as a site of risk, and expressed this anxiety in disinfection routines and cleansing rituals. This risk prevention behaviour is mediated by situational and lived experience, and not expressed consistently. Doctors and nurses negotiate IPAC protocols with individual perceptions of risk, material limitations, and more pressing needs. CONCLUSION: IPAC behaviour could be reinforced by improving risk communication in the hospital, first, by involving workers as stakeholders in managing the risk of infection, and second, by acknowledging various forms of risk knowledge, including embodied and situated experience, as well as material constraints. We recommend developing participatory models of risk communication that engage stakeholders in long-term dialogue, considering their risk perceptions, risk tolerance, and challenges to comply with guidelines; communicating IPAC measures as a way to protect patients and emphasizing personal risk for hospital workers; and conducting regular in-person training sessions to ensure that any concerns can be voiced.

When good messages go wrong: Perspectives on COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine communication from generally vaccine accepting individuals in Canada.

Vaccines are one of the most important and successful public health interventions to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. However, unlike childhood diseases and routine vaccines, COVID-19 is a novel threat, and COVID-19 vaccines may elicit specific anxieties. Through focus groups, we examine the concerns and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine expressed by individuals who accept routine vaccinations in Canada. We also conducted a pre-focus group survey to document participant attitudes towards vaccines in general. While most participants had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or had the intention to get it, many had concerns. First, participants felt anxious about the quick development and approval of the vaccines, even if they recognized that the vaccines have undergone clinical trials. Second, participants felt confused about shifting public health guidelines regarding vaccine safety, changing the interval between doses, and mixing different vaccine brands. Finally, participants said they felt abandoned when deciding whether to get vaccinated or not. People who generally accept vaccines expressed concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, mostly related to the inevitable uncertainties of a new vaccine (i.e. novelty, safety, mandates, etc.). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, understood as concerns about the novelty of a vaccine and the rapid implementation of it, could be useful for understanding questioning attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines from people who accept routine vaccinations. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can also provide valuable insights as booster doses are periodically needed and people may not be as accepting of these additional doses.

Care of patients on home parenteral nutrition during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: Management of central line-associated bloodstream infections.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this study was to analyze central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in home parenteral nutrition (HPN) patients assisted by an interdisciplinary team during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina. METHODS: Longitudinal, retrospective and analytical study of patients on HPN for ≥90 days during 2020. Data collection included age (adults >18 years, pediatric ≤18 years), gender, diagnosis, type of catheter, number of lumens, venous access, days on HPN, infusion modality and number of CLABSI-associated events. In COVID-19 cases, number of patients, disease progression, mortality rate and microorganisms involved were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients were included, 120 (31.6%) pediatric and 260 (68.4%) adult patients. Median age was 44.50 years (10; 62.25). Twelve patients (3.15% of the total) had COVID-19; of these, two pediatric and seven adult patients had no complications, and three adults died of COVID-19 pneumonia. The diagnoses observed were benign chronic intestinal failure (CIF, n = 311), grouped into short bowel (n = 214, 56.3%), intestinal dysmotility (n = 56, 14.7%), intestinal fistula (n = 20, 5.3%), and extensive small bowel mucosal disease (n = 21, 5.5%); malignant tumors (n = 52, 13.7%); other (n = 17, 4.4%). Total catheter days were 103,702. Median days of PN duration per patient were 366 (176.2, 366). The types of catheters used were tunneled (317 patients, 83.4%); peripherally inserted central (PICC) line (55 patients, 14.5%) and ports (8 patients; 2.1%). A total of 111 CLABSI was registered, with a prevalence of 1.09/1000 catheter days (adult, 0.86/1000 days; pediatric, 1.51/1000 days). The microorganisms identified in infectious events were Gram + bacteria (38, 34.5%); Gram-bacteria (36, 32%); mycotic (10, 9%); polymicrobial (4, 3.6%); negative culture and signs/symptoms of CLABSI (23, 20.3%). The odds ratio between pediatric and adult patients was 2.29 (1.35, 3.90). CONCLUSION: The rate of CLABSI during the COVID-19 pandemic was within the ranges reported by international scientific societies. The risk of CLABSI was higher in pediatric patients, and mortality rate in COVID-19 infected patients was higher than in the general population.

"They're trying to bribe you and taking away your freedoms": COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in communities with traditionally low vaccination rates.

Vaccination is an essential public health intervention to control the COVID-19 pandemic. A minority of Canadians, however, remain hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, while others outright refuse them. We conducted focus groups to gauge perceptions and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines in people who live in a region with historically low rates of childhood vaccination. Participants discussed their perception of COVID-19 vaccines and their intention to get vaccinated, and the low rate of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Manitoba's Southern Health Region compared to other regions in Canada. We identified three drivers of vaccine hesitancy: (1) risk perceptions about COVID-19 and the vaccines developed to protect against it, (2) religious and conservative views; and (3) distrust in government and science. Participant proposed recommendations for improving communication and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines included: public health messages emphasising the benefits of vaccination; addressing the community's specific concerns and dispelling misinformation; highlighting vaccine safety; and emphasising vaccination as a desirable behaviour from a religious perspective. Understanding the specific anxieties elicited by COVID-19 vaccines in areas with low childhood immunization rates can inform risk communication strategies tailored to increase vaccination in these specific regions. This study adds important information on potential reasons for vaccine hesitancy in areas with historically low rates of childhood vaccination, and provides important lessons learned for future emergencies in terms of vaccine hesitancy drivers and effective risk communication to increase vaccine uptake.

"None of it was especially easy": improving COVID-19 vaccine equity for people with disabilities.

OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to (1) identify barriers to equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines for Canadians with disabilities and (2) present recommendations made by study participants to improve immunization programs in terms of inclusivity and equitable access. METHODS: We invited Manitobans living with disabilities to participate in online focus groups. Focus groups were conducted across multiple disability experiences, although one focus group was advertised explicitly as offering simultaneous American Sign Language interpretation to encourage people who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing to participate. Participants were asked about their perspectives on the management of COVID-19 public health measures and vaccination program rollout. Participants were also asked about barriers and facilitators of their vaccination experiences and if they had recommendations for improvement. RESULTS: The participants identified three areas where they encountered routine barriers in accessing the COVID-19 vaccines: (1) vaccine information and appointment booking, (2) physical access to vaccination clinics, and (3) vaccination experience. While participants identified specific recommendations to improve vaccine accessibility for people with disabilities, the single most crucial advice consistently identified was to involve people with disabilities in developing accessible immunization programs. CONCLUSION: Meaningful engagement with people living with disabilities in immunization program planning would help ensure that people with disabilities, who already face significant challenges due to COVID-19, are offered the same protections as the rest of the population. These recommendations could be easily transferred to the administration of other large-scale immunization campaigns (e.g., influenza vaccines).

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Notre étude visait à (1) identifier les obstacles à un accès équitable aux vaccins contre la COVID-19 pour les Canadiens vivant avec un handicap; et (2) présenter les recommandations faites par les participants à l'étude pour améliorer les programmes de vaccination en termes d'inclusivité et d'accès équitable. MéTHODES: Nous avons invité les Manitobains vivant avec un handicap à participer à des groupes de discussion en ligne. Les groupes de discussion ont été organisés pour divers types de handicap, bien qu'un groupe de discussion ait été explicitement annoncé comme offrant une interprétation simultanée en langue des signes américaine pour encourager les personnes sourdes ou malentendantes à participer. Les participants ont été interrogés sur leurs points de vue sur la gestion des mesures de santé publique contre la COVID-19 et le déploiement du programme d'immunisation. Les participants ont également été interrogés sur les obstacles et les facilitateurs de leurs expériences de vaccination et s'ils avaient des recommandations d'amélioration. RéSULTATS: Les participants ont identifié trois domaines dans lesquels ils ont rencontré des obstacles récurrents pour accéder aux vaccins contre la COVID-19 : 1) l'information sur les vaccins et la prise de rendez-vous, 2) l'accès physique aux cliniques de vaccination, et 3) l'expérience de la vaccination. Bien que les participants aient formulé des recommandations spécifiques pour améliorer l'accessibilité des vaccins pour les personnes handicapées, le conseil le plus crucial systématiquement identifié a été d'impliquer les personnes vivant avec un handicap dans l'élaboration de programmes d'immunisation accessibles. CONCLUSION: Un engagement significatif envers les personnes handicapées dans la planification du programme d'immunisation aiderait à garantir que les personnes vivant avec un handicap, qui sont déjà confrontées à des défis importants en raison de la COVID-19, bénéficient des mêmes protections que le reste de la population. Ces recommandations pourraient être facilement transférées à l'administration d'autres campagnes de vaccination à grande échelle (par exemple, le vaccin contre la grippe).

Moral panic about "covidiots" in Canadian newspaper coverage of COVID-19.

Moral panics are moments of intense and widespread public concern about a specific group, whose behaviour is deemed a moral threat to the collective. We examined public health guidelines in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canadian newspaper editorials, columns and letters to the editor, to evaluate how perceived threats to public interests were expressed and amplified through claims-making processes. Normalization of infection control behaviours has led to a moral panic about lack of compliance with preventive measures, which is expressed in opinion discourse. Following public health guidelines was construed as a moral imperative and a civic duty, while those who failed to comply with these guidelines were stigmatized, shamed as "covidiots," and discursively constructed as a threat to public health and moral order. Unlike other moral panics in which there is social consensus about what needs to be done, Canadian commentators presented a variety of possible solutions, opening a debate around infection surveillance, privacy, trust, and punishment. Public health communication messaging needs to be clear, to both facilitate compliance and provide the material conditions necessary to promote infection prevention behaviour, and reduce the stigmatization of certain groups and hostile reactions towards them.

Communicating scientific uncertainty in a rapidly evolving situation: a framing analysis of Canadian coverage in early days of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought the production of scientific knowledge onto the public agenda in real-time. News media and commentators analysed the successes and failures of the pandemic response in real-time, bringing the process of scientific inquiry, which is also fraught with uncertainty, onto the public agenda. We examine how Canadian newspapers framed scientific uncertainty in their initial coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and how journalists made sense of the scientific process. METHODS: We conducted a framing analysis of 1143 news stories and opinion during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a qualitative analysis software, our analysis focused, first, on how scientific uncertainty was framed in hard news and opinion discourse (editorial, op-ed). Second, we compared how specialist health and science reporters discussed scientific evidence versus non-specialist reporters in hard news and columns. RESULTS: Uncertainty emerged as a "master frame" across the sample, and four additional framing strategies were used by reporters and commentators when covering the pandemic: (1), evidence -focusing on presence or absence of it-; (2) transparency and leadership -focusing on the pandemic response-; (3) duelling experts - highlighting disagreement among experts or criticizing public health decisions for not adhering to expert recommendations-; and (4) mixed messaging -criticizing public health communication efforts. While specialist journalists understood that scientific knowledge evolves and the process is fraught with uncertainty, non-specialist reporters and commentators expressed frustration over changing public health guidelines, leading to the politicization of the pandemic response and condemnation of elected officials' decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Managing scientific uncertainty in evolving science-policy situations requires timely and clear communication. Public health officials and political leaders need to provide clear and consistent messages and access to data regarding infection prevention guidelines. Public health officials should quickly engage in communication course corrections if original messages are missing the intended mark, and clearly explain the shift. Finally, public health communicators should be aware of and more responsive to a variety of media reporters, who will bring different interpretative frames to their reporting. More care and effort are needed in these communication engagements to minimize inconsistencies, uncertainty, and politicization.