COVID-19 pandemic impacts on mental health, burnout, and longevity in the workplace among healthcare workers: A mixed methods study.

To explore the mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in Massachusetts and identify potential strategies to maintain the healthcare workforce we conducted a sequential exploratory mixed methods study. Fifty-two individuals completed interviews from April 22nd - September 7th, 2021; 209 individuals completed an online survey from February 17th - March 23rd, 2022. Interviews and surveys asked about the mental health impacts of working in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout, longevity in the workplace, and strategies for reducing attrition. Interview and survey participants were predominantly White (56%; 73%, respectively), female (79%; 81%) and worked as physicians (37%; 34%). Interviewees indicated high stress and anxiety levels due to frequent exposure to patient deaths from COVID-19. Among survey respondents, 55% reported worse mental health than before the pandemic, 29% reported a new/worsening mental health condition for themselves or their family, 59% reported feeling burned out at least weekly, and 37% intended to leave healthcare in less than 5 years. To decrease attrition, respondents suggested higher salaries (91%), flexible schedules (90%), and increased support to care for patients (89%). Healthcare workers' experiences with death, feeling unvalued, and overworked resulted in unprecedented rates of burnout and intention to leave healthcare.

Comparison of attitudes toward routine maternal vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant patients in an urban safety-net setting.

OBJECTIVE: To explore attitudes toward tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap), influenza, and COVID vaccines among English- and Spanish- speaking pregnant individuals in a safety net setting. METHODS: Pregnant people aged 18 years or older were recruited from outpatient clinics between August 2020 and June 2021. Interviews were conducted via phone in English or Spanish, recorded, transcribed, and translated verbatim. Data were qualitatively analyzed using modified grounded theory and content analysis. RESULTS: 42 patients participated (22 English-speaking, 20 Spanish-speaking). Most participants expressed positive attitudes towards both routine prenatal vaccinations and COVID-19 vaccines, endorsing the belief that vaccines promote health and considering vaccines a social norm. Positive attitudes were similar for the three vaccines, and among Spanish- and English-speaking individuals. Participants trusted their healthcare provider's recommendations and felt comfortable receiving booster doses of vaccines they had received successfully in the past. Vaccine concerns differed by each vaccine. Despite limited knowledge, few participants expressed concerns about Tdap vaccines. Concerns around influenza vaccines often stemmed from personal experience and centered around ineffectiveness and increased risk of flu-like illnesses. Participants expressed the most concerns related to COVID vaccinations, including misinformation about serious side effects and distrust around accelerated approval of the vaccines. Many participants wished to know more about the side effects and safety of vaccinating during pregnancy, especially regarding the fetus's health. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants supported routine prenatal vaccinations, including COVID vaccines. Clinicians are trusted information sources and can help reinforce positive attitudes and social norms of receiving vaccinations in pregnancy while addressing vaccine-specific concerns. FUNDING: This work was supported by Suzanne Cutler Vaccination Education & Research Fund at the Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine for funding and support.

Healthcare workers' perspectives on the COVID-19 vaccine and boosters for themselves, their patients, and their communities: a mixed methods study.

Aim: To examine experiences and attitudes of a diverse sample of clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers regarding COVID-19 vaccines and boosters for themselves, their patients, and their communities. Subject and methods: We conducted a sequential exploratory mixed methods study; 52 healthcare workers participated in qualitative interviews between April 22 and September 7, 2021, and 209 healthcare workers completed surveys between February 17 and March 23, 2022. Interviews and survey questions asked about personal attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination and boosters and experiences discussing vaccination with patients. Results: Participants were predominantly White (56% and 73%, respectively) and female (79% and 81%, respectively). Factors motivating healthcare workers to take the vaccine were the belief that vaccination would protect themselves, their families, patients, and communities. Healthcare workers were accepting of and had high receipt of the booster, though some had diminished belief in its effectiveness after becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 after initial vaccination. Race related mistrust, misinformation related to vaccine safety, and concerns about vaccine effects during pregnancy were the most common barriers that providers encountered among their patients and communities. Conclusions: Healthcare workers' primary motivation to receive COVID-19 vaccines was the desire to protect themselves and others. Healthcare workers' perception was that concerns about safety and misinformation were more important barriers for their patients than themselves. Race-related medical mistrust amplified concerns about vaccine safety and hindered communication efforts.

Healthcare workers' attitudes on mandates, incentives, and strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake: A mixed methods study.

Healthcare workers are a trusted health information source and are uniquely positioned to reduce the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this sequential exploratory mixed methods study was to understand attitudes of healthcare workers working in Massachusetts during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine utilization, including vaccine mandates and incentives. Fifty-two individuals completed one-on-one interviews between April 22nd and September 7th, 2021. The survey was developed based on findings from the interviews; 209 individuals completed the online survey between February 17th and March 23rd, 2022. Both the interview and survey asked about attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine and booster mandates, incentives, and strategies to improve vaccination rates. Most participants were female (79%-interview, 81%-survey), Caucasian (56%, 73%), and worked as physicians (37%, 34%) or nurses (10%, 18%). Overall, nuanced attitudes regarding vaccine and booster mandates were expressed; many supported mandates to protect their patients' health, others emphasized personal autonomy, while some were against mandates if job termination was the consequence of declining vaccines. Similarly, views regarding vaccine incentives differed; some considered incentives helpful, yet many viewed them as coercive. Strategies believed to be most effective to encourage vaccination included improving accessibility to vaccination sites, addressing misinformation, discussing vaccine safety, tailored community outreach via trusted messengers, and one-on-one conversations between patients and healthcare workers. Healthcare workers' experiences with strategies to improve utilization of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters have implications for public health policies. Generally, efforts to improve access and education were viewed more favorably than incentives and mandates.

Likelihood of COVID-19 reinfection in an urban community cohort in Massachusetts.

Background: Understanding the association of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection with subsequent reinfection has public health relevance. Objective: To explore COVID-19 severity and SARS-CoV-2 infection and reinfection rates. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Boston, Massachusetts, during the first COVID-19 surge (01/01/2020-05/31/2020; Period-1) and after the first surge (06/01/2020-02/28/2021; Period-2); Period-2 included the second surge (11/01/2020-02/28/2021). Participants: Patients in an academic medical center and six community health centers who received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 between 01/01/2020 and 05/31/2020 or SARS-CoV-2 testing between 01/01/2020 and 02/28/2021. Measurements: COVID-19 severity was compared between Period-1 and Period-2. Poisson regression models adjusted for demographic variables, medical comorbidities, and census tract were used to assess reinfection risk among patients with COVID-19 diagnoses or SARS-CoV-2 testing during Period-1 and additional SARS-CoV-2 testing during Period-2. Results: Among 142,047 individuals receiving SARS-CoV-2 testing or clinical diagnoses during the study period, 15.8% were infected. Among COVID-19 patients, 22.5% visited the emergency department, 13% were hospitalized, and 4% received critical care. Healthcare utilization was higher during Period-1 than Period-2 (22.9% vs. 18.9% emergency department use, 14.7% vs. 9.9% hospitalization, 5.5% vs. 2.5% critical care; p < 0.001). Reinfection was assessed among 8961 patients with a SARS-CoV-2 test or COVID-19 diagnosis in Period-1 who underwent additional testing in Period-2. A total of 2.7% (n = 65/2431) with SARS-CoV-2 in Period-1 tested positive in Period-2, compared with 12.6% (n = 821/6530) of those who initially tested negative (IRR of reinfection = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.15-0.25). Conclusions: Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection among this observational cohort was associated with an 81% lower reinfection rate.

Long-Term Multilevel Intervention Impact on Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Rates Spanning the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term sustainability of a multilevel intervention and the COVID-19 pandemic impact on adolescent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2016, a pediatric and family medicine practice within a federally qualified health center completed a multilevel intervention, Development of Systems and Education for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination. We examined the intervention impact on HPV vaccine initiation and completion rates among adolescents 10-18 years between March 2016 and October 2020. We determined the total number of HPV vaccine doses administered monthly. Data were plotted on statistical process control charts. RESULTS: Vaccine initiation increased from an average of 14% to an average of 42% for 10-year-old patients and from an average of 72% to an average of 92% for 11- to 12-year-old patients between March 2016 and January 2017 and remained stable through March 2020. Complete vaccination by age 13 years increased from 62% to 88% through October 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention led to continued improvement for on-time HPV vaccination coverage 4 years after intervention completion.Clinical Trial Registration: This trial has been registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02812732).