ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Our community-based participatory research partnership aims to expand understanding of the social, ethical and behavioural implications of COVID-19 testing and vaccination to inform the development of an integrated intervention that harnesses community-based peer navigation and mHealth strategies to improve COVID-19 testing and vaccination; test the intervention; and develop and disseminate practice, research and policy recommendations to further increase COVID-19 testing and vaccination among Spanish-speaking Latine communities in the USA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct 50 individual in-depth interviews with health providers, who have conducted COVID-19 testing and/or vaccination activities within Spanish-speaking communities, and with representatives from Latine-serving community-based organisations. We will also conduct six focus groups with 8-12 Spanish-speaking Latine community member participants each for a total number of about 60 focus group participants. Next, we will develop the Nuestra Comunidad Saludable intervention based on findings from interviews and focus groups and use a longitudinal group-randomised trial design with two arms (intervention and delayed intervention) to evaluate the impact of the intervention. We will recruit, enrol and collect baseline data from 20 community-based peer navigators (Navegantes) and their social network members (n=8 unique social network members per Navegante). Navegantes (coupled with their social networks) will be randomised to intervention or delayed intervention groups (10 Navegantes and 80 social network members per group). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for data collection was granted by the Wake Forest University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Following the description of study procedures, we will obtain consent from all study participants. Study findings will be disseminated through an empowerment theory-based community forum, peer-reviewed publications and presentations at scientific meetings, and reports and briefs for lay, community and practitioner audiences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05302908.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 , Humans , United States , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hispanic or Latino , Vaccination , Social Networking , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE: Discovery of effective vaccines and increased confidence that infection confers extended protection against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have renewed discussion of using immunity certificates or 'passports' to selectively reduce ongoing public health restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To determine public views regarding government and private conferral of immunity privileges. DESIGN AND SETTING: National on-line survey fielded in June 2020. Participants were randomly asked about either government 'passports' or private 'certificates' for COVID-19 immunity. PARTICIPANTS: Adults from a standing panel maintained for academic research, selected to approximate national demographics. MAIN OUTCOMES/MEASURES: Level of support/opposition to immunity privileges, and whether views vary based on: government vs. private adoption; demographics; political affiliation or views; or various COVID19-related attitudes and experiences. RESULTS: Of 1315 respondents, 45.2% supported immunity privileges, with slightly more favoring private certificates than government passports (48.1% vs 42.6%, p = 0.04). Support was greater for using passports or certificates to enable returns to high-risk jobs or attendance at large recreational events than for returning to work generally. Levels of support did not vary significantly according to age groups, socioeconomic or employment status, urbanicity, political affiliation or views, or whether the respondent had chronic disease(s). However, estimates from adjusted analyses showed less support among women (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.80), and among Hispanics (0.56; 0.40 to 0.78) and other minorities (0.58; 0.40 to 0.85) compared with whites, but not among blacks (0.83; 0.60 to 1.15). Support was much higher among those who personally wanted a passport or certificate (75.6% vs 24.4%) and much lower among those who believed this would harm the social fabric of their community (22.9% vs 77.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Public views are divided on both government or private uses of immunity certificates, but, prior to any efforts to politicize the issues, these views did not vary along usual political lines or by characteristics that indicate individual vulnerability to infection. Social consensus on the desirability of an immunity privileges programs may be difficult to achieve.