At the intersection of trust and mistrust: A qualitative analysis of motivators and barriers to research participation at a safety-net hospital.

INTRODUCTION: The underrepresentation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) individuals in healthcare research limits generalizability and contributes to healthcare inequities. Existing barriers and attitudes toward research participation must be addressed to increase the representation of safety net and other underserved populations. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients at an urban safety net hospital, focusing on facilitators, barriers, motivators, and preferences for research participation. We conducted direct content analysis guided by an implementation framework and used rapid analysis methods to generate final themes. RESULTS: We completed 38 interviews and identified six major themes related to preferences for engagement in research participation: (1) wide variation in research recruitment preferences; (2) logistical complexity negatively impacts willingness to participate; (3) risk contributes to hesitation toward research participation; (4) personal/community benefit, interest in study topic, and compensation serve as motivators for research participation; (5) continued participation despite reported shortcomings of informed consent process; and (6) mistrust could be overcome by relationship or credibility of information sources. CONCLUSION: Despite barriers to participation in research studies among safety-net populations, there are also facilitators that can be implemented to increase knowledge and comprehension, ease of participation, and willingness to join research studies. Study teams should vary recruitment and participation methods to ensure equal access to research opportunities. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our analysis methods and study progress were presented to individuals within the Boston Medical Center healthcare system. Through this process community engagement specialists, clinical experts, research directors, and others with significant experience working with safety-net populations supported data interpretation and provided recommendations for action following the dissemination of data.

"Community members have more impact on their neighbors than celebrities": leveraging community partnerships to build COVID-19 vaccine confidence.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are a strong public health tool to protect against severe disease, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. Still, inequities in COVID-19 vaccination rates and health outcomes continue to exist among Black and Latino populations. Boston Medical Center (BMC) has played a significant role in vaccinating medically underserved populations, and organized a series of community-engaged conversations to better understand community concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. This paper describes the themes which resulted from these community-engaged conversations and proposes next steps for healthcare leaders. METHODS: We accessed nine publicly available recordings of the community-engaged conversations which were held between March 2021 and September 2021 and ranged from 8 to 122 attendees. Six conversations prioritized specific groups: the Haitian-Creole community, the Cape Verdean community, the Latino community, the Black Christian Faith community, guardians who care for children living with disabilities, and individuals affected by systemic lupus erythematosus. Remaining conversations targeted the general public of the Greater Boston Area. We employed a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-driven codebook to code our data. Our analysis utilized a modified version of qualitative rapid analysis methods. RESULTS: Five main themes emerged from these community-engaged conversations: (1) Structural factors are important barriers to COVID-19 vaccination; (2) Mistrust exists due to the negative impact of systemic oppression and perceived motivation of the government; (3) There is a desire to learn more about biological and clinical characteristics of the COVID-19 vaccine as well as the practical implications of being vaccinated; (4) Community leaders emphasize community engagement for delivering COVID-19 information and education and; (5) Community leaders believe that the COVID-19 vaccine is a solution to address the pandemic. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates a need for community-engaged COVID-19 vaccine messaging which reflects the nuances of the COVID-19 vaccine and pandemic without oversimplifying information. In highlighting common concerns of the Greater Boston Area which contribute to a lack of confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine, we underscore important considerations for public health and healthcare leadership in the development of initiatives which work to advance health equity.

A multisite exploration of the association between critical care implementation factors and clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Little is known about strategies to implement new critical care practices in response to COVID-19. Moreover, the association between differing implementation climates and COVID-19 clinical outcomes has not been examined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between implementation determinants and COVID-19 mortality rates. Methods: We used mixed methods guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with critical care leaders and analyzed to rate the influence of CFIR constructs on the implementation of new care practices. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of CFIR construct ratings were performed between hospital groups with low- versus high-mortality rates. Results: We found associations between various implementation factors and clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Three CFIR constructs (implementation climate, leadership engagement, and engaging staff) had both qualitative and statistically significant quantitative correlations with mortality outcomes. An implementation climate governed by a trial-and-error approach was correlated with high COVID-19 mortality, while leadership engagement and engaging staff were correlated with low mortality. Another three constructs (needs of patient; organizational incentives and rewards; and engaging implementation leaders) were qualitatively different across mortality outcome groups, but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Improving clinical outcomes during future public health emergencies will require reducing identified barriers associated with high mortality and harnessing salient facilitators associated with low mortality. Our findings suggest that collaborative and engaged leadership styles that promote the integration of new yet evidence-based critical care practices best support COVID-19 patients and contribute to lower mortality.

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of new critical care practices during COVID-19: a multicenter qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes. RESULTS: Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles. CONCLUSIONS: Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

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.

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).