The Selah study protocol of three interventions to manage stress among clergy: a preference-based randomized waitlist control trial.

INTRODUCTION: Like many helping professionals in emotional labor occupations, clergy experience high rates of mental and physical comorbidities. Regular stress management practices may reduce stress-related symptoms and morbidity, but more research is needed into what practices can be reliably included in busy lifestyles and practiced at a high enough level to meaningfully reduce stress symptoms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The overall design is a preference-based randomized waitlist control trial. United Methodist clergy in North Carolina will be eligible to participate. The intervention and waitlist control groups will be recruited by email. The interventions offered are specifically targeted to clergy preference and include mindfulness-based stress reduction, Daily Examen, and stress inoculation training. Surveys will be conducted at 0, 12, and 24 weeks with heart rate data collected at 0 and 12 weeks. The primary outcomes for this study are self-reported symptoms of stress and heart rate at week 12 for each intervention compared to waitlist control; the secondary outcome is symptoms of anxiety comparing each intervention vs waitlist control. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Duke University Campus IRB (2019-0238). The results will be made available to researchers, funders, and members of the clergy community. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: While evidence-based stress reduction practices such as mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) exist, a wider variety of practices should be tested to appeal to different individuals. Clergy in particular may prefer, and consequently enact, spiritual practices like the Daily Examen, and individuals such as clergy who spend most of their time thinking and feeling may prefer experiential-based practices like stress inoculation training. If efficacious, the Daily Examen and stress inoculation training practices have high feasibility in that they require few minutes per day. This study is limited by the inclusion of Christian clergy of only one denomination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04625777 . November 12, 2020.

Healthcare provider knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes regarding opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in North America prior to the emergence of COVID-19: A systematic review of qualitative research.

Background: Balance between benefits and harms of using opioids for the management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. There is no one-size-fits-all approach that can be executed by prescribers and clinicians when considering this therapy. Aim: The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for prescribing opioids for CNCP through a systematic review of qualitative literature. Methods: Six databases were searched from inception to June 2019 for qualitative studies reporting on provider knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, or practices pertaining to prescribing opioids for CNCP in North America. Data were extracted, risk of bias was rated, and confidence in evidence was graded. Results: Twenty-seven studies reporting data from 599 health care providers were included. Ten themes emerged that influenced clinical decision making when prescribing opioids. Providers were more comfortable to prescribe opioids when (1) patients were actively engaged in pain self-management, (2) clear institutional prescribing policies were present and prescription drug monitoring programs were used, (3) long-standing relationships and strong therapeutic alliance were present, and (4) interprofessional supports were available. Factors that reduced likelihood of prescribing opioids included (1) uncertainty toward subjectivity of pain and efficacy of opioids, (2) concern for the patient (e.g., adverse effects) and community (i.e., diversion), (3) previous negative experiences (e.g., receiving threats), (4) difficulty enacting guidelines, and (5) organizational barriers (e.g., insufficient appointment duration and lengthy documentation). Conclusions: Understanding barriers and facilitators that influence opioid-prescribing practices offers insight into modifiable targets for interventions that can support providers in delivering care consistent with practice guidelines.

Contexte: L'équilibre entre les avantages et les inconvénients de l'utilisation d'opioïdes pour la prise en charge de la douleur chronique non cancéreuse (CNCP) doit être soigneusement examiné au cas par cas. Il n'existe pas d'approche uniforme pouvant être adoptée par les prescripteurs et les cliniciens lorsqu'ils envisagent cette thérapie.Objectif: L'objectif de cette étude était de recenser les obstacles et les facilitateurs pour la prescription d'opioïdes pour la douleur chronique non cancéreuse par une revue systématique de la littérature qualitative.Méthodes: Six bases de données ont été consultées pour la période allant de leur création jusqu'en juin 2019 afin d'y repérer les rapports d'études qualitatives sur les connaissances, les attitudes, les croyances ou les pratiques des prestataires en matière de prescription d'opioïdes pour la douleur chronique non cancéreuse en Amérique du Nord. Les données ont été extraites, le risque de biais a été évalué et la confiance envers les données probantes a été notée.Résultats: Vingt-sept études faisant état de données provenant de 599 prestataires de soins de santé ont été incluses. Dix thèmes influençant la prise de décision clinique lors de la prescription d'opioïdes ont émergé. Les prestataires étaient plus à l'aise pour prescrire des opioïdes lorsque (1) les patients étaient activement engagés dans la prise en charge de la douleur, (2) des politiques de prescription institutionnelles claires et des programmes de surveillance des médicaments d'ordonnance étaient en place, (3) des relations de longue date et une alliance thérapeutique forte étaient présentes, et (4) du soutien interprofessionnel était disponible. Les facteurs qui réduisaient la probabilité de la prescription d'opioïdes comprenaient (1) l'incertitude à l'égard de la subjectivité de la douleur et de l'efficacité des opioïdes, (2) une préoccupation pour le patient (p. ex., effets indésirables) et la collectivité (p. ex., détournement), (3) des expériences négatives antérieures (p. ex., recevoir des menaces), (4) des difficultés à adopter des lignes directrices et (5) des obstacles organisationnels (p. ex., durée insuffisante des rendez-vous et longueur de la documentation).Conclusions: La compréhension des obstacles et des facilitateurs qui influencent les pratiques de prescription d'opioïdes permet d'avoir un aperçu des cibles modifiables pour les interventions qui peuvent aider les prestataires à fournir des soins conformes aux directives de pratique.

Ending the Pandemic: How Behavioural Science Can Help Optimize Global COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake.

Governments, public health officials and pharmaceutical companies have all mobilized resources to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns, social distancing, and personal protective behaviours have been helpful but have shut down economies and disrupted normal activities. Vaccinations protect populations from COVID-19 and allow a return to pre-pandemic ways of living. However, vaccine development, distribution and promotion have not been sufficient to ensure maximum vaccine uptake. Vaccination is an individual choice and requires acceptance of the need to be vaccinated in light of any risks. This paper presents a behavioural sciences framework to promote vaccine acceptance by addressing the complex and ever evolving landscape of COVID-19. Effective promotion of vaccine uptake requires understanding the context-specific barriers to acceptance. We present the AACTT framework (Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time) to identify the action needed to be taken, the person needed to act, the context for the action, as well as the target of the action within a timeframe. Once identified a model for identifying and overcoming barriers, called COM-B (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation lead to Behaviour), is presented. This analysis identifies issues associated with capability, opportunity and motivation to act. These frameworks can be used to facilitate action that is fluid and involves policy makers, organisational leaders as well as citizens and families.