Examining the role of COVID-19 testing availability on intention to isolate: A Randomized hypothetical scenario.

BACKGROUND: Little information exists on how COVID-19 testing influences intentions to engage in risky behavior. Understanding the behavioral effects of diagnostic testing may highlight the role of adequate testing on controlling viral transmission. In order to evaluate these effects, simulated scenarios were conducted evaluating participant intentions to self-isolate based on COVID-19 diagnostic testing availability and results. METHODS: Participants from the United States were recruited through an online survey platform (Amazon Mechanical Turk) and randomized to one of three hypothetical scenarios. Each scenario asked participants to imagine having symptoms consistent with COVID-19 along with a clinical diagnosis from their physician. However, scenarios differed in either testing availability (testing available v. unavailable) or testing result (positive v. negative test). The primary outcome was intention to engage in high-risk COVID-19 behaviors, measured using an 11-item mean score (range 1-7) that was pre-registered prior to data collection. Multi-variable linear regression was used to compare the mean composite scores between conditions. The randomized survey was conducted between July 23rd to July 29th, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1400 participants were recruited through a national, online, opt-in survey. Out of 1194 respondents (41.6% male, 58.4% female) with a median age of 38.5 years, participants who had no testing available in their clinical scenario showed significantly greater intentions to engage in behavior facilitating COVID-19 transmission compared to those who received a positive confirmatory test result scenario (mean absolute difference (SE): 0.14 (0.06), P = 0.016), equating to an 11.1% increase in mean score risky behavior intentions. Intention to engage in behaviors that can spread COVID-19 were also positively associated with male gender, poor health status, and Republican party affiliation. CONCLUSION: Testing availability appears to play an independent role in influencing behaviors facilitating COVID-19 transmission. Such findings shed light on the possible negative externalities of testing unavailability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Effect of Availability of COVID-19 Testing on Choice to Isolate and Socially Distance, NCT04459520, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04459520.

Impact of COVID-19 on Primary Care Quality Measures in an Academic Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Access to primary care was hindered by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate changes in health screening rates before and during the pandemic. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of health maintenance and disease management screening rates among primary care patients before and during the pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: Over 150,000 patients of a large, academic health system. MAIN MEASURES: Six quality measures were analyzed: colon cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, diabetes Hgb A1C, diabetes eye, and diabetes nephropathy monitoring. Based on US Preventative Services Task Force screening guidelines, we determined which patients were due for at least one of the quality measures. We tracked completion rates during three time periods: pre-pandemic (January 1-March 3, 2020), stay-at-home (March 4-May 8, 2020), and phased reopening (May 9-July 8, 2020). Differences in quality measure completion rates were evaluated using mixed-effects logistic regression models. KEY RESULTS: Compared to pre-pandemic rates, completion of all health screenings declined during the stay-at-home period: mammograms (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.31-0.37), cervical cancer (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.76-0.91), colorectal cancer (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.23-0.28), diabetes eye (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.29-0.41), diabetes Hgb A1c (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.37-0.46), and diabetes nephropathy (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.41-0.53). During phased reopening, completion of all quality measures increased compared to the stay-at-home period, except for cervical cancer screening (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.76-0.92). There was a persistent reduction in completion of all quality measures, except for diabetic nephropathy monitoring (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.89-1.09), during phased reopening compared to pre-pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare screening rates were reduced during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic and did not fully recover to pre-pandemic rates by July 2020. Future research should aim to clarify the long-term impacts of delayed health screenings. New interventions should be considered for expanding remote preventative health services.

Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations.

Enhancing vaccine uptake is a critical public health challenge1. Overcoming vaccine hesitancy2,3 and failure to follow through on vaccination intentions3 requires effective communication strategies3,4. Here we present two sequential randomized controlled trials to test the effect of behavioural interventions on the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. We designed text-based reminders that make vaccination salient and easy, and delivered them to participants drawn from a healthcare system one day (first randomized controlled trial) (n = 93,354 participants; clinicaltrials number NCT04800965) and eight days (second randomized controlled trial) (n = 67,092 individuals; clinicaltrials number NCT04801524) after they received a notification of vaccine eligibility. The first reminder boosted appointment and vaccination rates within the healthcare system by 6.07 (84%) and 3.57 (26%) percentage points, respectively; the second reminder increased those outcomes by 1.65 and 1.06 percentage points, respectively. The first reminder had a greater effect when it was designed to make participants feel ownership of the vaccine dose. However, we found no evidence that combining the first reminder with a video-based information intervention designed to address vaccine hesitancy heightened its effect. We performed online studies (n = 3,181 participants) to examine vaccination intentions, which revealed patterns that diverged from those of the first randomized controlled trial; this underscores the importance of pilot-testing interventions in the field. Our findings inform the design of behavioural nudges for promoting health decisions5, and highlight the value of making vaccination easy and inducing feelings of ownership over vaccines.