Partisan Differences in Legislators' Discussion of Vaccination on Twitter During the COVID-19 Era: Natural Language Processing Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 era has been characterized by the politicization of health-related topics. This is especially concerning given evidence that politicized discussion of vaccination may contribute to vaccine hesitancy. No research, however, has examined the content and politicization of legislator communication with the public about vaccination during the COVID-19 era. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine vaccine-related tweets produced by state and federal legislators during the COVID-19 era to (1) describe the content of vaccine-related tweets; (2) examine the differences in vaccine-related tweet content between Democrats and Republicans; and (3) quantify (and describe trends over time in) partisan differences in vaccine-related communication. METHODS: We abstracted all vaccine-related tweets produced by state and federal legislators between February 01, 2020, and December 11, 2020. We used latent Dirichlet allocation to define the tweet topics and used descriptive statistics to describe differences by party in the use of topics and changes in political polarization over time. RESULTS: We included 14,519 tweets generated by 1463 state legislators and 521 federal legislators. Republicans were more likely to use words (eg, "record time," "launched," and "innovation") and topics (eg, Operation Warp Speed success) that were focused on the successful development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Democrats used a broader range of words (eg, "anti-vaxxers," "flu," and "free") and topics (eg, vaccine prioritization, influenza, and antivaxxers) that were more aligned with public health messaging related to the vaccine. Polarization increased over most of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Republican and Democratic legislators used different language in their Twitter conversations about vaccination during the COVID-19 era, leading to increased political polarization of vaccine-related tweets. These communication patterns have the potential to contribute to vaccine hesitancy.

"We have to be uncomfortable and creative": Reflections on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on overdose prevention, harm reduction & homelessness advocacy in Philadelphia.

The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing service delivery interruptions had serious impacts on people who use drugs (PWUD) and people experiencing homelessness, including instability in the drug supply, decreased access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and harm reduction supplies, increased substance use and relapse due to stress and isolation, inability to properly isolate and quarantine without stable housing, and risk of COVID-19 spread in congregate living spaces. At the same time, many have noted a potential opportunity for rapid change in health, housing, and drug policy despite previous stagnation-referred to as a "punctuated equilibrium" by Baumgartner and Jones-in response to the pandemic. The pandemic forced some important policy interventions in the United States at both national and local levels, including eviction moratoriums and loosening of drug policy related to substance use treatment. However, to what extent some of these changes will be sustained past the current COVID-19 crisis is still unclear, as is how drug and housing related policy shifts have impacted the work of frontline overdose prevention, substance use treatment, and homelessness advocacy workers. In this qualitative study, we used semi-structured interviews to assess how Philadelphia's harm reduction advocates, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians have responded to the overdose and homelessness crises during COVID-19, and how they predict the pandemic and ensuing policy changes will impact the future of overdose prevention, harm reduction efforts, and homelessness advocacy. We interviewed 30 eligible participants during July and August 2020. The analysis of these data yielded three themes: 1/"None of it should be new to anybody": COVID-era issues impacting PWUD and people experiencing homelessness are extensions of existing problems; 2/"An opportunity to actually benefit in some way from this crisis": Possibility for innovation and improved care for PWUD and people experiencing homelessness; and 3/"Nothing we've tried has worked, so we have to be uncomfortable and creative": The uncertain path forward. Despite the many barriers that participants faced to promoting the health and well-being of marginalized communities during the pandemic, they also believed that the pandemic presented an important opportunity for positive policy change that has the potential to promote drug user health into the future, including a continuation of loosened federal restrictions on substance use disorder treatment, legalization of safe consumption spaces, safe supply of substances, and progressive, creative housing solutions.

Telehealth for opioid use disorder treatment in low-barrier clinic settings: an exploration of clinician and staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The majority of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) face access barriers to evidence-based treatment, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the United States (US) opioid overdose crisis. However, the pandemic has also ushered in rapid transitions to telehealth in the USA, including for substance use disorder treatment with buprenorphine. These changes have the potential to mitigate barriers to care or to exacerbate pre-existing treatment inequities. The objective of this study was to qualitatively explore Philadelphia-based low-barrier, harm-reduction oriented, opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment provider perspectives about and experiences with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess their desire to offer telehealth to patients at their programs in the future. METHODS: We interviewed 22 OUD treatment prescribers and staff working outpatient programs offering OUD treatment with buprenorphine in Philadelphia during July and August 2020. All participants worked at low-barrier treatment programs that provide buprenorphine using a harm reduction-oriented approach and without mandating counseling or other requirements as a condition of treatment. We analyzed the data using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis yielded three themes: 1/ Easier access for some: telehealth facilitates care for many patients who have difficulty attending in-person appointments due to logistical and psychological barriers; 2/ A layered digital divide: engagement with telehealth can be seriously limited by patients' access to and comfort with technology; and 3/ Clinician control: despite some clinic staff beliefs that patients should have the freedom to choose their treatment modality, patients' access to treatment via telehealth may hinge on clinician perceptions of patient "stability" rather than patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth may address many access issues, however, barriers to implementation remain, including patient ability and desire to attend healthcare appointments virtually. In addition, the potential for telehealth models to extend OUD care to patients currently underserved by in-person models may partially depend on clinician comfort treating patients deemed "unstable" via this modality. The ability of telehealth to expand access to OUD care for individuals who have previously struggled to engage with in-person care will likely be limited if these patients are not given the opportunity to receive treatment via telehealth.

Changes in legislator vaccine-engagement on Twitter before and after the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Widespread SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake will be critical to resolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. Politicians have the potential to impact vaccine sentiment and uptake through vaccine-related communication with the public. We used tweets (n = 6,201), abstracted from Quorum, a public affairs software platform, to examine changes in the frequency of vaccine-related communication by legislators on the social media platform, Twitter. We found an increase in vaccine-related tweets by legislators following the arrival of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States. In the pre-COVID-19 era the majority of vaccine-related tweets were generated by Democrat and state senators. The increase in tweets following the arrival of COVID-19, however, was greater among Republican and federal legislators than Democrat or state legislators. This suggests that legislators who were previously less engaged in public discussion of vaccination, became engaged following the arrival of SARS-CoV-2, which may have implications for COVID-19 vaccine uptake among their followers.