Intention to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine among Brazilian immigrant women in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted low-income immigrant communities. There is concern that the current uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is suboptimal and that this may be contributing to COVID-19 inequities. However, little is known about the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines among immigrants in the U.S. Our goal was to gauge COVID-19 vaccine intentions among Brazilian immigrant women living in the U.S. METHODS: We conducted an online survey between July and August 2020 offered in Portuguese and English languages among a convenience sample of Brazilian immigrant women ages 18 years and older. Women were recruited through online advertisements by community-based organizations and social media groups to complete a survey that assessed intention to get a COVID-19 vaccine, attitudes toward vaccines, and perceptions about the pandemic. RESULTS: Of the total sample (N = 353), most (70.8%) indicated they intended to get a COVID-19 vaccine. In bivariate analyses, vaccine intentions were significantly associated with perceptions about the severity of the pandemic, trusted sources of health information, and the number of years lived in the U.S. Multinomial logistic regression models revealed that those who did not intend to be vaccinated had lived a longer time in the U.S. (OR: -0.12 95% CI: -0.19, -0.05), perceived the pandemic to be a minor issue (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.62, 2.42), and trusted information from social networks (OR: -1.94, 95% CI: -3.25, -0.63) or private news sources (OR: -1.71, 95% CI: -2.78, -0.63). CONCLUSIONS: While most women reported they would get a COVID-19 vaccine, efforts to reach those who may be hesitant should target those who have lived in the U.S. for longer periods of time and do not perceive the pandemic to be a major crisis. Healthcare providers may be particularly suited to deliver this information given high levels of trust.

Treatment Decision Making for Older Kidney Patients during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted medical care across health care settings for older patients with advanced CKD. Understanding how shared decision making for kidney treatment decisions was influenced by the uncertainty of an evolving pandemic can provide insights for supporting shared decision making through the current and future public health crises. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed thematic and narrative analyses of semistructured interviews with patients (CKD stages 4 and 5, age 70+), care partners, and clinicians from Boston, Portland (Maine), San Diego, and Chicago from August to December 2020. RESULTS: We interviewed 76 participants (39 patients, 17 care partners, and 20 clinicians). Among patient participants, 13 (33%) patients identified as Black, and seven (18%) had initiated dialysis. Four themes with corresponding subthemes emerged related to treatment decision making and the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) adapting to changed educational and patient engagement practices (patient barriers to care and new opportunities for telemedicine); (2) reconceptualizing vulnerability (clinician awareness of illness severity increased and limited discussions of patient COVID-19 vulnerability); (3) embracing home-based dialysis but not conservative management (openness to home-based modalities and limited discussion of conservative management and advanced care planning); and (4) satisfaction and safety with treatment decisions despite conditions of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinicians perceived greater vulnerability among older patients CKD and more readily encouraged home-based modalities during the COVID-19 pandemic, their discussions of vulnerability, advance care planning, and conservative management remained limited, suggesting areas for improvement. Clinicians reported burnout caused by the pandemic, increased time demands, and workforce limitations, whereas patients remained satisfied with their treatment choices despite uncertainty. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: Decision Aid for Renal Therapy (DART), NCT03522740.

Associations among political voting preference, high-risk health status, and preventative behaviors for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: We investigate the relationships among political preferences, risk for COVID-19 complications, and complying with preventative behaviors, such as social distancing, quarantine, and vaccination, as they remain incompletely understood. Since those with underlying health conditions have the highest mortality risk, prevention strategies targeting them and their caretakers effectively can save lives. Understanding caretakers' adherence is also crucial as their behavior affects the probability of transmission and quality of care, but is understudied. Examining the degree to which adherence to prevention measures within these populations is affected by their health status vs. voting preference, a key predictor of preventative behavior in the U. S, is imperative to improve targeted public health messaging. Knowledge of these associations could inform targeted COVID-19 campaigns to improve adherence for those at risk for severe consequences. METHODS: We conducted a nationally-representative online survey of U.S. adults between May-June 2020 assessing: 1) attempts to socially-distance; 2) willingness/ability to self-quarantine; and 3) intention of COVID-19 vaccination. We estimated the relationships between 1) political preferences 2) underlying health status, and 3) being a caretaker to someone with high-risk conditions and each dependent variable. Sensitivity analyses examined the associations between political preference and dependent variables among participants with high-risk conditions and/or obesity. RESULTS: Among 908 participants, 75.2% engaged in social-distancing, 94.4% were willing/able to self-quarantine, and 60.1% intended to get vaccinated. Compared to participants intending to vote for Biden, participants who intended to vote for Trump were significantly less likely to have tried to socially-distance, self-quarantine, or intend to be vaccinated. We observed the same trends in analyses restricted to participants with underlying health conditions and their caretakers Underlying health status was independently associated with social distancing among individuals with obesity and another high-risk condition, but not other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Engagement in preventative behavior is associated with political voting preference and not individual risk of severe COVID-19 or being a caretaker of a high-risk individual. Community based strategies and public health messaging should be tailored to individuals based on political preferences especially for those with obesity and other high-risk conditions. Efforts must be accompanied by broader public policy.

Strengthening Health Systems To Face Pandemics: Subnational Policy Responses To COVID-19 In Latin America.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions such as stay-at-home orders continue to be the main policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic in countries with limited or slow vaccine rollout. Often, nonpharmaceutical interventions are managed or implemented at the subnational level, yet little information exists on within-country variation in nonpharmaceutical intervention policies. We focused on Latin America, a COVID-19 epicenter, and collected and analyzed daily subnational data on public health measures in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru to compare within- and across-country nonpharmaceutical interventions. We showed high heterogeneity in the adoption of these interventions at the subnational level in Brazil and Mexico; consistent national guidelines with subnational heterogeneity in Argentina and Colombia; and homogeneous policies guided by centralized national policies in Bolivia, Chile, and Peru. Our results point to the role of subnational policies and governments in responding to health crises. We found that subnational responses cannot replace coordinated national policy. Our findings imply that governments should focus on evidence-based national policies while coordinating with subnational governments to tailor local responses to changing local conditions.

Punt Politics as Failure of Health System Stewardship: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Brazil and Mexico.

We present a new concept, Punt Politics, and apply it to the COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) in two epicenters of the pandemic: Mexico and Brazil. Punt Politics refers to national leaders in federal systems deferring or deflecting responsibility for health systems decision-making to sub-national entities without evidence or coordination. The fragmentation of authority and overlapping functions in federal, decentralized political systems make them more susceptible to coordination problems than centralized, unitary systems. We apply the concept to pandemics, which require national health system stewardship, using sub-national NPI data that we developed and curated through the Observatory for the Containment of COVID-19 in the Americas to illustrate Punt Politics in Mexico and Brazil. Both countries suffer from protracted, high levels of COVID-19 mortality and inadequate pandemic responses, including little testing and disregard for scientific evidence. We illustrate how populist leadership drove Punt Politics and how partisan politics contributed to disabling an evidence-based response in Mexico and Brazil. These cases illustrate the combination of decentralization and populist leadership that is most conducive to punting responsibility. We discuss how Punt Politics reduces health system functionality, providing lessons for other countries and future pandemic responses, including vaccine rollout.

Why are some people reluctant to be vaccinated for COVID-19? A cross-sectional survey among U.S. Adults in May-June 2020.

Understanding reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is necessary to ensure maximum uptake, needed for herd immunity. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between May 29-June 20, 2020 among a national sample of U.S. adults ages 18 years and over to assess cognitive, attitudinal and normative beliefs associated with not intending to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Of 1219 respondents, 17.7% said that they would not get a vaccine and 24.2% were unsure. In multivariable analyses controlled for gender, age, income, education, religious affiliation, health insurance coverage, and political party affiliation, those who reported that they were unwilling be vaccinated (versus those who were willing) were less likely to agree that vaccines are safe/effective (Relative Risk Ratio (RRR): 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31, 0.66), that everyone has a responsibility to be vaccinated (RRR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.52), that public authorities should be able to mandate vaccination (RRR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.98), and more likely to believe that if everyone else were vaccinated they would not need a vaccine (RRR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.78). Our results suggest that health messages should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines, as well as the fact that vaccinating oneself is important, even if the level of uptake in the community is high.

A partisan pandemic: state government public health policies to combat COVID-19 in Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: To present an analysis of the Brazilian health system and subnational (state) variation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, based on 10 non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected daily information on implementation of 10 NPI designed to inform the public of health risks and promote distancing and mask use at the national level for eight countries across the Americas. We then analyse the adoption of the 10 policies across Brazil's 27 states over time, individually and using a composite index. We draw on this index to assess the timeliness and rigour of NPI implementation across the country, from the date of the first case, 26 February 2020. We also compile Google data on population mobility by state to describe changes in mobility throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Brazil's national NPI response was the least stringent among countries analysed. In the absence of a unified federal response to the pandemic, Brazilian state policy implementation was neither homogenous nor synchronised. The median NPI was no stay-at-home order, a recommendation to wear masks in public space but not a requirement, a full school closure and partial restrictions on businesses, public transportation, intrastate travel, interstate travel and international travel. These restrictions were implemented 45 days after the first case in each state, on average. Rondônia implemented the earliest and most rigorous policies, with school closures, business closures, information campaigns and restrictions on movement 24 days after the first case; Mato Grosso do Sul had the fewest, least stringent restrictions on movement, business operations and no mask recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies wide variation in national-level NPI responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our focus on Brazil identifies subsequent variability in how and when states implemented NPI to contain COVID-19. States' NPIs and their scores on the composite policy index both align with the governors' political affiliations: opposition governors implemented earlier, more stringent sanitary measures than those supporting the Bolsonaro administration. A strong, unified national response to a pandemic is essential for keeping the population safe and disease-free, both at the outset of an outbreak and as communities begin to reopen. This national response should be aligned with state and municipal implementation of NPI, which we show is not the case in Brazil.

Not far enough: Public health policies to combat COVID-19 in Mexico's states.

BACKGROUND: Mexican state governments' actions are essential to control the COVID-19 pandemic within the country. However, the type, rigor and pace of implementation of public policies have varied considerably between states. Little is known about the subnational (state) variation policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We collected daily information on public policies designed to inform the public, as well as to promote distancing, and mask use. The policies analyzed were: School Closure, Workplace Closure, Cancellation of Public Events, Restrictions on Gatherings, Stay at Home Order, Public Transit Suspensions, Information Campaigns, Internal Travel Controls, International Travel Controls, Use of Face Masks We use these data to create a composite index to evaluate the adoption of these policies in the 32 states. We then assess the timeliness and rigor of the policies across the country, from the date of the first case, February 27, 2020. RESULTS: The national average in the index during the 143 days of the pandemic was 41.1 out of a possible 100 points on our index. Nuevo León achieved the highest performance (50.4); San Luis Potosí the lowest (34.1). The differential between the highest versus the lowest performance was 47.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies variability and heterogeneity in how and when Mexican states implemented policies to contain COVID-19. We demonstrate the absence of a uniform national response and widely varying stringency of state responses. We also show how these responses are not based on testing and do not reflect the local burden of disease. National health system stewardship and a coordinated, timely, rigorous response to the pandemic did not occur in Mexico but is desirable to contain COVID-19.