Decisions about adopting novel COVID-19 vaccines among White adults in a rural state, USA: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Many people, especially in rural areas of the United States, choose not to receive novel COVID-19 vaccinations despite public health recommendations. Understanding how people describe decisions to get vaccinated or not may help to address hesitancy. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 rural inhabitants of Maine, a sparsely populated state in the northeastern US, about COVID-19 vaccine decisions during the early rollout (March-May 2021). We used the framework method to compare responses, including between vaccine Adopters and Non-adopters. FINDINGS: Adopters framed COVID-19 as unequivocally dangerous, if not personally, then to other people. Describing their COVID concerns, Adopters emphasized disease morbidities. By contrast, Non-adopters never mentioned morbidities, referencing instead mortality risk, which they perceived as minimal. Instead of risks associated with the disease, Non-adopters emphasized risks associated with vaccination. Uncertainty about the vaccine development process, augmented by social media, bolstered concerns about the long-term unknown risks of vaccines. Vaccine Adopters ultimately described trusting the process, while Non-adopters expressed distrust. CONCLUSION: Many respondents framed their COVID vaccination decision by comparing the risks between the disease and the vaccine. Associating morbidity risks with COVID-19 diminishes the relevance of vaccine risks, whereas focusing on low perceived mortality risks heightens their relevance. Results could inform efforts to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the rural US and elsewhere. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of Maine rural communities were involved throughout the study. Leaders of community health groups provided feedback on the study design, were actively involved in recruitment, and reviewed findings after analysis. All data produced and used in this study were co-constructed through the participation of community members with lived experience.

Getting patients back for routine colorectal cancer screening: Randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making intervention.

Thousands of colonoscopies were canceled during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. As facilities resumed services, some patients were hesitant to reschedule. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a decision aid plus telephone coaching would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and improve patient reports of shared decision making (SDM). A randomized controlled trial assigned adults aged 45-75 without prior history of CRC who had a colonoscopy canceled from March to May 2020 to intervention (n = 400) or usual care control (n = 400) arms. The intervention arm received three-page decision aid and call from decision coach from September 2020 through November 2020. Screening rates were collected at 6 months. A subset (n = 250) in each arm was surveyed 8 weeks after randomization to assess SDM (scores range 0-4, higher scores indicating more SDM), decisional conflict, and screening preference. The sample was on average, 60 years old, 53% female, 74% White, non-Hispanic, and 11% Spanish speaking. More intervention arm patients were screened within 6 months (35% intervention vs 23% control, p < 0.001). The intervention respondents reported higher SDM scores (mean difference 0.7 [0.4, 0.9], p < 0.001) and less decisional conflict than controls (-21% [-35%, -7%], p = 0.003). The majority in both arms preferred screening versus delaying (68% intervention vs. 65% control, p = 0.75). An SDM approach that offered alternatives and incorporated patients' preferences resulted in higher screening rates. Patients who are overdue for CRC screening may benefit from proactive outreach with SDM support.

Cross-sectional Survey Examining Patient Attitudes and Preferences for Rescheduling Screening Colonoscopies Canceled due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were canceled. Patient perceptions of the benefits and risks of routine screening relative to health concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were unknown. Purpose. Assess patient anxiety, worry, and interest in CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A random sample of 200 patients aged 45 to 75 y with colonoscopy cancellation due to COVID-19 in March to May 2020 were surveyed. Anxiety, COVID-19 and CRC risk perceptions, COVID-19 and CRC worry, likelihood of following through with colonoscopy in the next month, and interest in alternatives to colonoscopy were assessed. Subsequent screening was tracked for 12 mo. Results. Respondents (N = 127/200, 63.5%) were on average 60 y old, female (59%), college educated (62% college degree or more), and White (91%). A substantial portion of patients (46%) stated they may not follow through with a colonoscopy in the next month. There was greater interest in stool-based testing than in delaying screening (48% v. 26%). Women, older patients, and patients indicating tolerance of uncertainty due to complexity reported they were less likely to follow through with colonoscopy in the next month. Greater interest in stool-based testing was related to lower perceptions of CRC risk. Greater interest in delaying screening was related to less worry about CRC and less tolerance of risk. Over 12 mo, 60% of participants completed screening. Patients who stated they were more likely to screen in the next month were more likely to complete CRC screening (P = 0.01). Conclusions. Respondents who had a colonoscopy canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in interest in rescheduling the procedure. A shared decision-making approach may help patients address varying concerns and select the best approach to screening for them. Highlights: In the wake of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of patients stated they were not likely to follow through with a colonoscopy in the short term, about half were interested in screening with a stool-based test, and only one-quarter were interested in delaying screening until next year.Patients who perceived themselves at higher risk of colorectal cancer were less interested in stool-based testing, and patients who were more worried about colorectal cancer were less interested in delaying screening.A shared decision-making approach may be necessary to tailor screening discussions for patients during subsequent waves of the pandemic, other occasions where resources are limited and patient preferences vary, or where patients hold conflicting views of screening.

Association of Vitamin D Prescribing and Clinical Outcomes in Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19.

It is unclear whether vitamin D benefits inpatients with COVID-19. Objective: To examine the relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19 outcomes. Design: Cohort study. Setting: National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database. Patients: 158,835 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and a sub-cohort with severe disease (n = 81,381) hospitalized between 1 January 2020 and 31 July 2021. Methods: We identified vitamin D prescribing using codes for vitamin D and its derivatives. We created a sub-cohort defined as having severe disease as those who required mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), had hospitalization >5 days, or hospitalization ending in death or hospice. Using logistic regression, we adjusted for age, sex, race, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and urban/rural residence, time period, and study site. Outcomes of interest were death or transfer to hospice, longer length of stay, and mechanical ventilation/ECMO. Results: Patients treated with vitamin D were older, had more comorbidities, and higher BMI compared with patients who did not receive vitamin D. Vitamin D treatment was associated with an increased odds of death or referral for hospice (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.10: 95% CI 1.05-1.14), hospital stay >5 days (AOR 1.78: 95% CI 1.74-1.83), and increased odds of mechanical ventilation/ECMO (AOR 1.49: 95% CI 1.44-1.55). In the sub-cohort of severe COVID-19, vitamin D decreased the odds of death or hospice (AOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94), but increased the odds of hospital stay longer >5 days (AOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.87-2.21) and mechanical ventilation/ECMO (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.21). Limitations: Our findings could reflect more aggressive treatment due to higher severity. Conclusion: Vitamin D treatment was associated with greater odds of extended hospitalization, mechanical ventilation/ECMO, and death or hospice referral.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people who inject drugs accessing harm reduction services in an rural American state.

BACKGROUND: The impact of public health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic on people who inject drugs (PWID) has varied across regions. In other countries, recent research has shown that PWID access to harm reduction services, despite rapid adaptations, has been negatively impacted. Our study describes these impacts in a rural state. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with PWID, community partners, and healthcare providers in the rural state of Maine (USA). We explored how changes made during the pandemic impacted access to harm reduction services, including basic services (i.e., shelter), syringe service programs, safe drug supply, low barrier treatment, and peer support. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method to apply Penchansky's model of access, with Saurman's modification, which includes six dimensions of access-accessibility, availability, acceptability, affordability, accommodation, awareness. RESULTS: We interviewed thirty-six stakeholders (N = 9 community partners, N = 9 healthcare providers, N = 18 PWID). Policies such as mobile outreach expansion, mail delivery of equipment, and relaxed telemedicine regulations facilitated accessibility to syringe service programs and low barrier buprenorphine treatment. Public health policies, such as social distancing and screening policies, reduced contact, which subsequently reduced acceptability and awareness of many services. Elimination of the one-for-one needle exchange in some areas increased, acceptability (i.e., perception of service), and affordability for PWID. However, some areas actually began enforcing a one-for-one needle exchange policy, which reduced affordability, acceptability, and awareness of services. CONCLUSIONS: Changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted all dimensions of access to harm reduction services among PWID. While some barriers to harm reduction services were unavoidable during the pandemic, we found that specific policy decisions mitigated service barriers, while other policies exacerbated them. Relaxing needle exchange policies were particularly helpful in facilitating access to harm reduction services by giving community organizations flexibility to adapt to the evolving needs of PWID. These results can inform policies and service delivery to optimally mitigate the negative impacts on PWID during, and beyond, the pandemic.

Understanding the Role of Misinformation in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a Rural State.

OBJECTIVE: to identify factors associated with COVID19 vaccine hesitancy, including sources of information among residents of Maine. METHODS: 148 study participants, recruited through community partners and primary care offices in Maine, completed an anonymous 15 item online survey. Recruitment and data collection occurred from May to September, 2021. Hesitancy was determined through a single question, "Will you get one of the COVID vaccines when it is offered to you?" RESULTS: vaccine hesitant respondents were younger than not hesitant respondents (p = 0.01). Hesitant individuals were significantly more likely to report concerns regarding the speed of COVID-19 vaccine production, vaccine efficacy, and potential vaccine side effects (p < 0.05 for each). Hesitant individuals were also significantly more likely to have discussed vaccination with their primary physician (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: overall, hesitant individuals are more likely to be younger and had less trust in information from government sources, but they sought input from primary care. They were also more concerned about efficacy, side effects, and the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines. Primary care physicians are in key positions to address these concerns due to contact with individuals who need accurate information.

Vitamin D Supplementation and Covid 19: Results from the U.S. N3C Data Enclave

Background It is estimated that 18% of adults in the U.S. take Vitamin D supplements. Some observational studies suggest that vitamin D supplementation activates the innate immune system and reduces the incidence and severity of viral infections. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, vitamin D supplements were touted as a potential therapy to prevent the disease and/or complications. However, supportive evidence is lacking. Methods The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) enclave is the largest COVID-19 data base with nearly 1.4 million positive patients at 56 sites in the U.S. We performed a retrospective analysis of vitamin D supplementation, either prescribed before or during hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2. Results 137,399 people took vitamin D supplements out of 1.4 million. Females prescribed vitamin D outnumbered males by almost 2:1, whereas in non-users there were no sex differences. Most supplement users were older than 50. African Americans constituted 13% of the non-users, but 23% of those prescribed vitamin D. Infected individuals with any vitamin D supplementation, pre-Covid, post-Covid or both, had a 6.66% mortality rate vs 2% mortality in non-users. Similarly, nearly a third of the supplement users were hospitalized compared to 11% in the non-users. The Charlson Co-Morbidity Index was 3.0±3 (SD) in users vs 1.0±2 (SD) in non-users. Conclusion 10% of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were taking vitamin D. They tended to be older, more likely to be African American and have significant co-morbidities. Hospitalization and mortality were higher among those taking Vitamin D in this cohort. Vitamin D is widely used to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2 but without evidence of efficacy. Disclosures Sally L. Hodder, M.D., Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)