Relationship building in pediatric research recruitment: Insights from qualitative interviews with research staff.

Introduction: Clinical research staff play a critical role in recruiting families for pediatric research, but their views are not well described. We aimed to describe how pediatric research staff build trusting research relationships with patients and their families. Methods: We interviewed research staff at one pediatric research institution and its affiliated academic medical center between November 2020 and February 2021. Staff were eligible if they conducted participant recruitment, consent, and/or enrollment for clinical research. We developed our semi-structured interview guide based on a framework for trusting researcher-community partnerships. Results: We interviewed 28 research staff, with a median age of 28 years (range 22-50) and a median of 5 years of experience (range 1-29). Interviewees identified factors relevant to relationship building across three levels: the individual staff member, the relational interaction with the family, and the institutional or other structural backdrop. Individual factors included how staff developed recruitment skills, their perceived roles, and their personal motivations. Relational factors spanned four stages of recruitment: before the approach, forming an initial connection with a family, building the connection, and following up. Structural factors were related to access and diversity, clinical interactions, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: Research staff discussed tensions and supports with various actors, challenges with the integration of research and clinical care, the importance of voluntariness for building trust, and multiple contributors to inequities in research. These findings reveal the importance of ensuring research staff have a voice in institutional policies and are supported to advocate for patients and families.

A qualitative study of COVID-19 vaccine decision making among urban Native Americans.

Background: Significant disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality exist for Native American (NA) people, the majority of whom live in urban areas. COVID-19 vaccination is a key strategy for mitigating these disparities; however, vaccination disparities affect NA communities. The current study investigated COVID-19 vaccine decision-making before widespread vaccine rollout occurred, among urban NA communities. We aimed to understand vaccine decision-making factors to develop recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine outreach. Methods: We conducted three in-depth virtual focus groups with 17 NA adults living in an urban community (Los Angeles County) between December 2020 and January 2021. Participants were recruited through NA community-based organizations and community stakeholders. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti. Findings: Participants in this study identified two overarching themes with implications for health vaccination campaigns. First, participants described a need for tailored information and outreach, including NA vaccine outreach that addresses misconceptions about vaccine development to calm fears of experimentation and support communication of vaccine evidence specific to NA people. Second, participants suggested strategies to improve public health resources in the urban NA community, such as the need for unified, proactive communication across trusted NA entities, navigation support to improve vaccine accessibility, and adequately resourcing health partnerships with and among trusted NA community agencies for improved reach. Conclusion: In this qualitative study, we found that urban NA participants reported several factors that affected their vaccine decision-making, including a lack of tailored information for their communities. Our findings also underscore the need to work with tribes, tribal leadership, and urban NA serving organizations to coordinate vaccine communication and distribution to urban communities where the majority of NAs now reside. Further, these findings have implications for COVID-19 vaccine outreach among urban NA communities and demonstrate the need for clear and tailored engagement about the COVID-19 vaccine.

"The System Doesn't Let Us in"-A Call for Inclusive COVID-19 Vaccine Outreach Rooted in Los Angeles Latinos' Experience of Pandemic Hardships and Inequities.

OBJECTIVE: Latino adults in Los Angeles have experienced disproportionate cases, deaths, and socioeconomic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. This qualitative study aimed to explore community perspectives on readiness for COVID-19 vaccination and to identify culturally tailored vaccine outreach strategies. METHODS: We conducted virtual focus groups with Los Angeles County Latino/a residents via Zoom between December 2020 to January 2021, as the first COVID-19 vaccines were receiving Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Focus groups were facilitated in Spanish and English by bilingual members of the research team. Discussions were analyzed via Atlas.ti software using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three focus groups (n = 15; four to six people each; two Spanish focus groups; one English) were conducted. Thematic findings centered on Latino COVID-19 vaccine equity: (1) Disproportionate infection risk due to essential worker status and socioeconomic burdens, misinformation, and familial or cultural tensions (2) Concerns for inequitable vaccine access due to immigration fears and limited healthcare access, and (3) A need for community-centered COVID-19 vaccine outreach and access. CONCLUSIONS: Our study on early Latino adult reactions to vaccine roll-out suggests the need for outreach strategies centering on validating community hardships, combating dis-/misinformation through trusted sources, and addressing socio-economic needs impacted by the pandemic.

COVID-19 Vaccine Decision-making Factors in Racial and Ethnic Minority Communities in Los Angeles, California.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had disproportionate effects on racial and ethnic minority communities, where preexisting clinical and social conditions amplify health and social disparities. Many of these communities report lower vaccine confidence and lower receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding factors that influence the multifaceted decision-making process for vaccine uptake is critical for narrowing COVID-19-related disparities. Objective: To examine factors that members of multiethnic communities at high risk for COVID-19 infection and morbidity report as contributing to vaccine decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used community-engaged methods to conduct virtual focus groups from November 16, 2020, to January 28, 2021, with Los Angeles County residents. Potential participants were recruited through email, video, and telephone outreach to community partner networks. Focus groups were stratified by self-identified race and ethnicity as well as age. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes were categorized by contextual, individual, and vaccine-specific influences using the World Health Organization's Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix categories. Results: A total of 13 focus groups were conducted with 70 participants (50 [71.4%] female) who self-identified as American Indian (n = 17 [24.3%]), Black/African American (n = 17 [24.3%]), Filipino/Filipina (n = 11 [15.7%]), Latino/Latina (n = 15 [21.4%]), or Pacific Islander (n = 10 [14.3%]). A total of 39 participants (55.7%) were residents from high-poverty zip codes, and 34 (48.6%) were essential workers. The resulting themes included policy implications for equitable vaccine distribution: contextual influences (unclear and unreliable information, concern for inequitable access or differential treatment, references to mistrust from unethical research studies, accessibility and accommodation barriers, eligibility uncertainty, and fears of politicization or pharmaceutical industry influence); social and group influences (inadequate exposure to trusted messengers or information, altruistic motivations, medical mistrust, and desire for autonomy); and vaccination-specific influences (need for vaccine evidence by subpopulation, misconceptions on vaccine development, allocation ambiguity, vaccination safety preferences, the importance of perceiving vaccine equity, burden of vaccine scheduling, cost uncertainty, and desire for practitioner recommendation). Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, participants reported a number of factors that affected their vaccine decision-making, including concern for inequitable vaccine access. Participants endorsed policy recommendations and strategies to promote vaccine confidence. These results suggest that support of informed deliberation and attainment of vaccine equity will require multifaceted, multilevel policy approaches that improve COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, enhance trust, and address the complex interplay of sociocultural and structural barriers to vaccination.