"The new normal has become a nonstop crisis": a qualitative study of burnout among Philadelphia's harm reduction and substance use disorder treatment workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic worsened the ongoing overdose crisis in the United States (US) and caused significant mental health strain and burnout among health care workers (HCW). Harm reduction, overdose prevention, and substance use disorder (SUD) workers may be especially impacted due to underfunding, resources shortages, and chaotic working environments. Existing research on HCW burnout primarily focuses on licensed HCWs in traditional environments and fails to account for the unique experiences of harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis descriptive study of 30 Philadelphia-based harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians about their experiences working in their roles during the COVID-19 pandemic in July-August 2020. Our analysis was guided by Shanafelt and Noseworthy's model of key drivers of burnout and engagement. We aimed to assess the applicability of this model to the experiences of SUD and harm reduction workers in non-traditional settings. RESULTS: We deductively coded our data in alignment with Shanafelt and Noseworthy's key drivers of burnout and engagement: (1) workload and job demands, (2) meaning in work, (3) control and flexibility, (4) work-life integration, (5) organizational culture and values, (6) efficiency and resources and (7) social support and community at work. While Shanafelt and Noseworthy's model broadly encompassed the experiences of our participants, it did not fully account for their concerns about safety at work, lack of control over the work environment, and experiences of task-shifting. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout among healthcare providers is receiving increasing attention nationally. Much of this coverage and the existing research have focused on workers in traditional healthcare spaces and often do not consider the experiences of community-based SUD treatment, overdose prevention, and harm reduction providers. Our findings indicate a gap in existing frameworks for burnout and a need for models that encompass the full range of the harm reduction, overdose prevention, and SUD treatment workforce. As the US overdose crisis continues, it is vital that we address and mitigate experiences of burnout among harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians to protect their wellbeing and to ensure the sustainability of their invaluable work.

State and Federal Legislators' Responses on Social Media to the Mental Health and Burnout of Health Care Workers Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic: Natural Language Processing and Sentiment Analysis.

Background: Burnout and the mental health burden of the COVID-19 pandemic have disproportionately impacted health care workers. The links between state policies, federal regulations, COVID-19 case counts, strains on health care systems, and the mental health of health care workers continue to evolve. The language used by state and federal legislators in public-facing venues such as social media is important, as it impacts public opinion and behavior, and it also reflects current policy-leader opinions and planned legislation. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine legislators' social media content on Twitter and Facebook throughout the COVID-19 pandemic to thematically characterize policy makers' attitudes and perspectives related to mental health and burnout in the health care workforce. Methods: Legislators' social media posts about mental health and burnout in the health care workforce were collected from January 2020 to November 2021 using Quorum, a digital database of policy-related documents. The total number of relevant social media posts per state legislator per calendar month was calculated and compared with COVID-19 case volume. Differences between themes expressed in Democratic and Republican posts were estimated using the Pearson chi-square test. Words within social media posts most associated with each political party were determined. Machine-learning was used to evaluate naturally occurring themes in the burnout- and mental health-related social media posts. Results: A total of 4165 social media posts (1400 tweets and 2765 Facebook posts) were generated by 2047 unique state and federal legislators and 38 government entities. The majority of posts (n=2319, 55.68%) were generated by Democrats, followed by Republicans (n=1600, 40.34%). Among both parties, the volume of burnout-related posts was greatest during the initial COVID-19 surge. However, there was significant variation in the themes expressed by the 2 major political parties. Themes most correlated with Democratic posts were (1) frontline care and burnout, (2) vaccines, (3) COVID-19 outbreaks, and (4) mental health services. Themes most correlated with Republican social media posts were (1) legislation, (2) call for local action, (3) government support, and (4) health care worker testing and mental health. Conclusions: State and federal legislators use social media to share opinions and thoughts on key topics, including burnout and mental health strain among health care workers. Variations in the volume of posts indicated that a focus on burnout and the mental health of the health care workforce existed early in the pandemic but has waned. Significant differences emerged in the content posted by the 2 major US political parties, underscoring how each prioritized different aspects of the crisis.

Patient and clinician perspectives of a remote monitoring program for COVID-19 and lessons for future programs.

COVID Watch is a remote patient monitoring program implemented during the pandemic to support home dwelling patients with COVID-19. The program conferred a large survival advantage. We conducted semi-structured interviews of 85 patients and clinicians using COVID Watch to understand how to design such programs even better. Patients and clinicians found COVID Watch to be comforting and beneficial, but both groups desired more clarity about the purpose and timing of enrollment and alternatives to text-messages to adapt to patients’ preferences as these may have limited engagement and enrollment among marginalized patient populations. Because inclusiveness and equity are important elements of programmatic success, future programs will need flexible and multi-channel human-to-human communication pathways for complex clinical interactions or patients who do not desire tech-first approaches.

Partisan differences in Twitter language among US legislators during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional study

Background: As policy makers continue to shape the national and local responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, the information they choose to share and how they frame their content provide key insights into the public and health care systems. Objective: We examined the language used by the members of the US House and Senate during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and measured content and sentiment based on the tweets that they shared. Methods: We used Quorum (Quorum Analytics Inc) to access more than 300,000 tweets posted by US legislators from January 1 to October 10, 2020. We used differential language analyses to compare the content and sentiment of tweets posted by legislators based on their party affiliation. Results: We found that health care-related themes in Democratic legislators' tweets focused on racial disparities in care (odds ratio [OR] 2.24, 95% CI 2.22-2.27;P<.001), health care and insurance (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.7-1.77;P<.001), COVID-19 testing (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.19;P<.001), and public health guidelines (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.22-1.29;P<.001). The dominant themes in the Republican legislators' discourse included vaccine development (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.47-1.55;P<.001) and hospital resources and equipment (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.18-1.25). Nonhealth care-related topics associated with a Democratic affiliation included protections for essential workers (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.52-1.59), the 2020 election and voting (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.27-1.35), unemployment and housing (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.24-1.31), crime and racism (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.18-1.26), public town halls (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.23), the Trump Administration (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.19-1.26), immigration (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.19), and the loss of life (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.35-1.42). The themes associated with the Republican affiliation included China (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.85-1.92), small business assistance (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.23-1.3), congressional relief bills (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.2-1.27), press briefings (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.19-1.26), and economic recovery (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.23). Conclusions: Divergent language use on social media corresponds to the partisan divide in the first several months of the course of the COVID-19 public health crisis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of an Automated Text Messaging Service for Monitoring COVID-19 at Home.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection can be safely managed at home, the need for hospitalization can arise suddenly. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether enrollment in an automated remote monitoring service for community-dwelling adults with COVID-19 at home ("COVID Watch") was associated with improved mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Mid-Atlantic academic health system in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 23 March and 30 November 2020. INTERVENTION: The COVID Watch service consists of twice-daily, automated text message check-ins with an option to report worsening symptoms at any time. All escalations were managed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by dedicated telemedicine clinicians. MEASUREMENTS: Thirty- and 60-day outcomes of patients enrolled in COVID Watch were compared with those of patients who were eligible to enroll but received usual care. The primary outcome was death at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Treatment effects were estimated with propensity score-weighted risk adjustment models. RESULTS: A total of 3488 patients enrolled in COVID Watch and 4377 usual care control participants were compared with propensity score weighted models. At 30 days, COVID Watch patients had an odds ratio for death of 0.32 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.72), with 1.8 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (CI, 0.5 to 3.1) (P = 0.005); at 60 days, the difference was 2.5 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (CI, 0.9 to 4.0) (P = 0.002). Patients in COVID Watch had more telemedicine encounters, ED visits, and hospitalizations and presented to the ED sooner (mean, 1.9 days sooner [CI, 0.9 to 2.9 days]; all P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Observational study with the potential for unobserved confounding. CONCLUSION: Enrollment of outpatients with COVID-19 in an automated remote monitoring service was associated with reduced mortality, potentially explained by more frequent telemedicine encounters and more frequent and earlier presentation to the ED. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

"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.

Partisan Differences in Twitter Language Among US Legislators During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: As policy makers continue to shape the national and local responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, the information they choose to share and how they frame their content provide key insights into the public and health care systems. OBJECTIVE: We examined the language used by the members of the US House and Senate during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and measured content and sentiment based on the tweets that they shared. METHODS: We used Quorum (Quorum Analytics Inc) to access more than 300,000 tweets posted by US legislators from January 1 to October 10, 2020. We used differential language analyses to compare the content and sentiment of tweets posted by legislators based on their party affiliation. RESULTS: We found that health care-related themes in Democratic legislators' tweets focused on racial disparities in care (odds ratio [OR] 2.24, 95% CI 2.22-2.27; P<.001), health care and insurance (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.7-1.77; P<.001), COVID-19 testing (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.19; P<.001), and public health guidelines (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.22-1.29; P<.001). The dominant themes in the Republican legislators' discourse included vaccine development (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.47-1.55; P<.001) and hospital resources and equipment (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.18-1.25). Nonhealth care-related topics associated with a Democratic affiliation included protections for essential workers (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.52-1.59), the 2020 election and voting (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.27-1.35), unemployment and housing (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.24-1.31), crime and racism (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.18-1.26), public town halls (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.23), the Trump Administration (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.19-1.26), immigration (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.19), and the loss of life (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.35-1.42). The themes associated with the Republican affiliation included China (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.85-1.92), small business assistance (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.23-1.3), congressional relief bills (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.2-1.27), press briefings (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.19-1.26), and economic recovery (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Divergent language use on social media corresponds to the partisan divide in the first several months of the course of the COVID-19 public health crisis.

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.