Recalled Exposure to COVID-19 Public Education Campaign Advertisements Predicts COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence.

This study examined the relationship between recalled exposure to the We Can Do This COVID-19 Public Education Campaign (the Campaign) and COVID-19 vaccine confidence (the likelihood of vaccination or vaccine uptake) in the general population, including vaccine-hesitant adults (the "Movable Middle"). Analyses used three waves of a triannual, nationally representative panel survey of adults in the U.S. fielded from January to November 2021 (n = 3,446). Proportional odds regression results demonstrated a positive, statistically significant relationship between past 4-month Campaign recall and vaccine confidence, controlling for lagged reports of Campaign recall and vaccine confidence; concurrent and lagged fictional campaign recall; survey wave; and sociodemographics. Results indicated that as one moves from no Campaign recall to infrequent recall, there is a 29% increase in the odds of being in a higher vaccine confidence category. Findings offer evidence of the impact of a COVID-19 public education campaign on increasing vaccine confidence.

The Initial Relationship Between the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Digital COVID-19 Public Education Campaign and Vaccine Uptake: Campaign Effectiveness Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Over 1 million people in the United States have died of COVID-19. In response to this public health crisis, the US Department of Health and Human Services launched the We Can Do This public education campaign in April 2021 to increase vaccine confidence. The campaign uses a mix of digital, television, print, radio, and out-of-home channels to reach target audiences. However, the impact of this campaign on vaccine uptake has not yet been assessed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to address this gap by assessing the association between the We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign's digital impressions and the likelihood of first-dose COVID-19 vaccination among US adults. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 3642 adults recruited from a US probability panel was surveyed over 3 waves (wave 1: January to February 2021; wave 2: May to June 2021; and wave 3: September to November 2021) regarding COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine confidence, and sociodemographics. Survey data were merged with weekly paid digital campaign impressions delivered to each respondent's media market (designated market area [DMA]) during that period. The unit of analysis was the survey respondent-broadcast week, with respondents nested by DMA. Data were analyzed using a multilevel logit model with varying intercepts by DMA and time-fixed effects. RESULTS: The We Can Do This digital campaign was successful in encouraging first-dose COVID-19 vaccination. The findings were robust to multiple modeling specifications, with the independent effect of the change in the campaign's digital dose remaining practically unchanged across all models. Increases in DMA-level paid digital campaign impressions in a given week from -30,000 to 30,000 increased the likelihood of first-dose COVID-19 vaccination by 125%. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study provide initial evidence of the We Can Do This campaign's digital impact on vaccine uptake. The size and length of the Department of Health and Human Services We Can Do This public education campaign make it uniquely situated to examine the impact of a digital campaign on COVID-19 vaccination, which may help inform future vaccine communication efforts and broader public education efforts. These findings suggest that campaign digital dose is positively associated with COVID-19 vaccination uptake among US adults; future research assessing campaign impact on reduced COVID-19-attributed morbidity and mortality and other benefits is recommended. This study indicates that digital channels have played an important role in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Digital outreach may be integral in addressing future pandemics and could even play a role in addressing nonpandemic public health crises.

Patients' Experiences with Cancer Care: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic heightened the psychosocial impact of a cancer diagnosis as patients face concerns about the risk of infection and serious disease and uncertainties about the impact on their treatment. We conducted an online survey (n = 317) and focus groups (n = 19) with patients to examine their experiences with cancer care during the pandemic. Most survey respondents (68%) reported one or more disruptions or delays in care, including appointments switched to telehealth (49%). Patients perceived both benefits (e.g., convenience) and drawbacks (e.g., more impersonal) to telehealth. For many patients, COVID-19-related restrictions on bringing family members to support them during appointments was a major concern and left them feeling alone and vulnerable during treatment. Patients' self-reported coping during the pandemic was positively associated with age, education, and income (P < .05 for each) and better communication with their doctors during telehealth sessions (P < .001). Study findings highlight the importance of patient-centered care and communication to help patients cope with the challenges of the pandemic. Further research is needed to develop guidelines for use of telehealth as part of patient-centered cancer care.

Managing uncertainty and responding to difficult emotions: Cancer patients' perspectives on clinician response during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic have experienced stress and uncertainty with respect to disruptions in cancer care and COVID-19 related risks. We examined whether clinicians' responsiveness to patients' uncertainty and difficult emotions were associated with better health and well-being. METHODS: Patients were recruited from cancer support communities and a market research firm. Respondents assessed clinicians communication that addressed uncertainty and difficult emotions. Health status measures included mental and physical health, coping during the pandemic, and psychological distress. RESULTS: 317 respondents participated in the study. Patients' perceptions of their clinicians responsiveness to patient uncertainty and negative emotions were associated with better mental health, physical health, coping, and less psychological distress (all p-values <0.001). Respondents with greater self-efficacy and social support also reported better health. CONCLUSION: Even when controlling for patients' personal and health-related characteristics, clinicians' communication addressing patients' uncertainty and difficult emotions predicted better health, better coping, and less psychological distress. Access to social support and self-efficacy also were associated with better health status. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians' communication focused on helping with uncertainty and difficult emotions is important to cancer patients, especially during the pandemic. Clinicians should also direct patients to resources for social support and patient empowerment.

Oncology patients' communication experiences during COVID-19: comparing telehealth consultations to in-person visits.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic created significant disruptions in cancer care, much of which was transitioned to telehealth. Because telehealth alters the way clinicians and patients interact with one another, this investigation examined patients' perceptions of their communication with clinicians during the pandemic. METHOD: Patients were recruited from the Cancer Support Community, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and a market research firm to participate in an online survey. In addition to demographic and health-related information, respondents completed measures of patient-centered communication and evaluated how their communication in telehealth sessions compared with in-person visits. RESULTS: From October to December 2020, 227 respondents (65.6% female, 64.6% Non-Hispanic White, 33.5% had 6 or more telehealth sessions, 55% were 50 or older) reported having some of their cancer care provided via telehealth. Respondents who were of racial/ethnic minorities, male, had more telehealth sessions, or had poorer mental health reported less patient-centered communication with clinicians. Most patients thought communication in telehealth sessions was "about the same" as in-person visits with respect to good communication (59%). However, patients thinking communication in telehealth sessions was "better" than in-person visits were more likely to be Hispanic (49%), Non-Hispanic Black (41%), under 50 years of age (32%), male (40%), and had more telehealth sessions (34%). CONCLUSION: Respondents reporting less patient-centered communication during the pandemic-e.g., persons of racial/ethnic minorities and males-were also more likely to evaluate communication in telehealth sessions as better than in-person visits. Further research is needed to understand reasons underlying this finding. Cancer care clinicians should take into account patient preferences regarding telehealth care, which may be particularly important for racial and ethnic minority patients.