Vaccination Intention Following Receipt of Vaccine Information Through Interactive Simulation vs Text Among COVID-19 Vaccine-Hesitant Adults During the Omicron Wave in Germany.

Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, vaccine-hesitant adults presented with an interactive risk ratio simulation were more likely to show positive change in COVID-19 vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm assessment than those presented with a conventional text-based information format. These findings suggest that the interactive risk communication format can be an important tool in addressing vaccination hesitancy and fostering public trust. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study conducted online with 1255 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant adult residents of Germany in April and May 2022, surveyed using a probability-based internet panel maintained by respondi, a research and analytics firm. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 presentations on the benefits and adverse events associated with vaccination. Exposure: Participants were randomized to a text-based description vs an interactive simulation presenting age-adjusted absolute risks of infection, hospitalization, ICU admission, and death after exposure to coronavirus in vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals relative to the possible adverse effects as well as additional (population-level) benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. Importance: Hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination is a major factor in stagnating uptake rates and in the risk of health care systems becoming overwhelmed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute change in respondents' COVID-19 vaccination intention category and benefit-to-harm assessment category. Objective: To compare an interactive risk ratio simulation (intervention) with a conventional text-based risk information format (control) and analyze change in participants' COVID-19 vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm assessment. Results: Participants were 1255 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant residents of Germany (660 women [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 43.6 [13.5] years). A total of 651 participants received a text-based description, and 604 participants received an interactive simulation. Relative to the text-based format, the simulation was associated with greater likelihood of positive change in vaccination intentions (19.5% vs 15.3%, respectively; absolute difference, 4.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.07-1.96; P = .01) and benefit-to-harm assessments (32.6% vs 18.0%; absolute difference, 14.6%; aOR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.64-2.80; P < .001). Both formats were also associated with some negative change. However, the net advantage (positive - negative change) of the interactive simulation over the text-based format was 5.3 percentage points for vaccination intention (9.8% vs 4.5%) and 18.3 percentage points for benefit-to-harm assessment (25.3% vs 7.0%). Positive change in vaccination intention (but not in benefit-to-harm assessment) was associated with some demographic characteristics and attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination; negative changes were not.

Association between patient-related factors and avoided consultations due to fear of COVID-19 during the first lockdown in northern Germany: Results of a cross-sectional observational study.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were anxious about a coronavirus infection due to the high infection rate and the mortality risk associated with the disease. Fear of COVID-19 might have influenced patients' utilisation of medical services, even if it meant that a postponed therapy had severe consequences. Our aims were to analyse (a) to what extent fear of COVID-19 contributes to forgone consultations, (b) if patient characteristics, health literacy and social support influence the effect of fear of COVID-19 on the utilisation behaviour and (c) whether interactions between these possible predictor variables are responsible for a higher extent of avoided consultations due to fear of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional observational study in an emergency department. The study was based on personal standardized interviews of patients. The interviews took place between July 15 and August 5, 2020. Patients over the age of 18 were included if there was no urgent need for treatment on the day of the interview, no severe functional limitations, sufficient knowledge of German, ability to consent and health problems requiring treatment between March 13 and June 13, 2020. Differences between patient subgroups were described and analysed using the t-test and chi2 test. Data were analysed by logistic regression including socio-demographic data, health literacy and social support assessed by standardised instruments. Additionally, we assessed interactions between possible predictor variables by a descriptive tree analysis. RESULTS: 103 patients participated in personal standardized interviews. 46 patients (44.6%) reported that at least one necessary consultation did not take place in the observation period. Among those, 29 patients (63.0%) avoided consultations due to fear of COVID-19. Women had 3.36 times higher odds (95% confidence interval: 1.25 to 9.04, p = 0.017) for avoiding a consultation due to fear of COVID-19. There were no other statistically significant predictors in our analysis. DISCUSSION: Almost half of the required consultations did not take place. Avoidance of consultations needs to be closely monitored during the pandemic. Policy makers as well as health care providers should give consideration to the collateral effects of COVID-19 and COVID-19-related reactions of patients, especially women. CONCLUSION: In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians should ensure that their patients take advantage of necessary consultations in order to avoid negative effects of a delayed examination or treatment. Particular attention should be paid to anxious female patients. Studies are needed to analyse the association between health literacy, social support and avoidance of consultations triggered by fear of COVID-19.

Expectations and Prior Experiences Associated With Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination.

Importance: Uptake of vaccination against COVID-19 is strongly affected by concerns about adverse effects. Research on nocebo effects suggests that these concerns can amplify symptom burden. Objective: To investigate whether positive and negative expectations prior to COVID-19 vaccination are associated with systemic adverse effects. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study analyzed the association of expected benefits and risks of vaccination, adverse effects at first vaccination, and observed adverse effects in close contacts with severity of systemic adverse effects among adults receiving a second dose of messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccines between August 16 and 28, 2021. A total of 7771 individuals receiving the second dose at a state vaccination center in Hamburg, Germany, were invited to participate; of these, 5370 did not respond, 535 provided incomplete information, and 188 were excluded retrospectively. The mobile application m-Path was used for data collection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was a composite severity index of systemic adverse effects in 12 symptom areas measured once daily with an electronic symptom diary over 7 consecutive days. Data were analyzed by mixed-effects multivariable ordered logistic regression adjusted for prevaccine symptom levels and observation times. Results: A total of 10 447 observations from 1678 individuals receiving vaccinations (BNT162b2 [Pfizer BioNTech] in 1297 [77.3%] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna] in 381 [22.7%]) were collected. The participants' median age was 34 (IQR, 27-44) years, and 862 (51.4%) were women. The risk for more severe adverse effects was higher for persons expecting a lower benefit of vaccination (odds ratio [OR] for higher expectations, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.63-0.83]; P < .001), expecting higher adverse effects of vaccination (OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.23-1.58]; P < .001), having experienced higher symptom burden at the first vaccination (OR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.42-1.82]; P < .001), scoring higher on the Somatosensory Amplification Scale (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.06-1.38]; P = .004), and if the vaccine mRNA-1273 was given rather than BNT162b2 (OR, 2.45 [95% CI, 2.01-2.99]; P < .001). No associations were seen for observed experiences. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, several nocebo effects occurred in the first week after COVID-19 vaccination. The severity of systemic adverse effects was associated not only with vaccine-specific reactogenicity but also more negative prior experiences with adverse effects from the first COVID-19 vaccination, more negative expectations regarding vaccination, and tendency to catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations. Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines.

Nichtinanspruchnahme medizinischer Leistungen in der COVID-19-Pandemie bei Personen mit chronischen Erkrankungen Non-utilisation of medical services during the COVID-19 pandemic among persons with chronic diseases

Einleitung Die COVID-19-Pandemie wirkt sich auch auf die medizinische Versorgung anderer Erkrankungen aus. Differenziert zwischen patient:innen- und anbieter:innenseitigen Gründen wurde untersucht, inwieweit Personen mit chronischen Erkrankungen vom Aussetzen medizinischer Versorgungsleistungen betroffen sind. Methoden Es wurde eine Querschnittstudie auf Datenbasis der Kohortenstudie Hamburg City Health Study (HCHS) durchgeführt. Die Studienpopulation bestand aus allen HCHS-Teilnehmer:innen (Stichprobe der Bevölkerung Hamburgs, 45–74 Jahre) zwischen April 2020 und November 2021. Über das „COVID-19-Modul" der HCHS wurde die Inanspruchnahme von Versorgungsleistungen erhoben. Als Grunderkrankungen wurden u. a. Herz-Kreislauf‑, Nieren- und Lungenerkrankungen, Krebs und Diabetes mellitus betrachtet. Die Daten wurden deskriptiv und multivariat in logistischen Regressionen ausgewertet. Ergebnisse Von 2047 Teilnehmer:innen hatten 47,9 % mindestens eine Vorerkrankung. 21,4 % der Personen mit Vorerkrankungen hatten mindestens eine Versorgungsleistung ausgesetzt oder eine Terminabsage erhalten. 15,4 % gaben an, von sich aus auf einen Arztbesuch verzichtet zu haben. Fachärztliche Leistungen (Anteil 43,8 %) entfielen häufiger als hausärztliche (16,6 %). Nach Adjustierung für Alter, Geschlecht und Bildung erwiesen sich Lungen- (OR 1,80;p < 0,008) und Krebserkrankungen (OR 2,33;p < 0,001) als unabhängige Risikofaktoren für ärztliche Terminabsagen. 42,2 % der patient:innenseitigen Absagen erfolgten aus Angst vor einer Ansteckung mit SARS-CoV‑2. Diskussion Gesundheitspolitik und Medien stehen vor der Herausforderung, mit Ängsten in der Bevölkerung vor einer Infektion so umzugehen, dass notwendige Versorgungsleistungen dadurch nicht vermieden werden. Zusatzmaterial online Zusätzliche Informationen sind in der Online-Version dieses Artikels (10.1007/s00103-023-03665-9) enthalten.

The effect of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on consultation numbers, consultation reasons and performed services in primary care: results of a longitudinal observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of our study were to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on primary care in Germany regarding the number of consultations, the prevalence of specific reasons for consultation presented by the patients, and the frequency of specific services performed by the GP. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal observational study based on standardised GP interviews in a quota sampling design comparing the time before the COVID-19 pandemic (12 June 2015 to 27 April 2017) with the time during lockdown (21 April to 14 July 2020). The sample included GPs in urban and rural areas 120 km around Hamburg, Germany, and was stratified by region type and administrative districts. Differences in the consultation numbers were analysed by multivariate linear regressions in mixed models adjusted for random effects on the levels of the administrative districts and GP practices. RESULTS: One hundred ten GPs participated in the follow-up, corresponding to 52.1% of the baseline. Primary care practices in 32 of the 37 selected administrative districts (86.5%) could be represented in both assessments. At baseline, GPs reported 199.6 ± 96.9 consultations per week, which was significantly reduced during COVID-19 lockdown by 49.0% to 101.8 ± 67.6 consultations per week (p < 0.001). During lockdown, the frequency of five reasons for consultation (-43.0% to -31.5%) and eleven services (-56.6% to -33.5%) had significantly decreased. The multilevel, multivariable analyses showed an average reduction of 94.6 consultations per week (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a dramatic reduction of the number of consultations in primary care. This effect was independent of age, sex and specialty of the GP and independent of the practice location in urban or rural areas. Consultations for complaints like low back pain, gastrointestinal complaints, vertigo or fatigue and services like house calls/calls at nursing homes, wound treatments, pain therapy or screening examinations for the early detection of chronic diseases were particularly affected.

Strategies in Primary Care to Face the SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Pandemic: An Online Survey.

Background: Primary care plays a key role in pandemics like the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020. We aimed to investigate the challenges faced and the solutions implemented in primary care. Methods: One hundred and twenty-one general practitioners in Germany completed the online survey. We used open questions to examine challenges experienced and solutions implemented during the early pandemic and chose qualitative content analysis to extract and describe the meaning of the answers. We derived deductive categories from the research questions and formed inductive categories during the material reviews. Results: Main challenges were: insufficient information, lack of protective equipment, need to restructure practice procedures and insufficient individual and structural pandemic preparedness, resulting in secondary challenges: fear of infection, impaired patient care, aggravated steering of patients, difficult cooperation with external entities and a not viable hygiene concept advised by authorities. Strategies to address these challenges included establishing regular team-meetings to develop new solutions, focusing on few reliable sources of information, working in alternating shifts, increasing telemedicine, establishing window and open-air practices and building networks with other health care providers. Respondents criticized the lack of consideration of their experiences in planning pandemic measures within primary care. Conclusions: General practitioners successfully applied pragmatic and creative strategies in their practices during the early phase of the pandemic. Among these, communication within and between practices emerged as a key strategy. These strategies should be provided with pandemic preparedness plans. The lacking consideration of the primary care providers' experiences in planning and implementing pandemic measures needs to be addressed by stakeholders.

[Impact of COVID-19-pandemic on Clinical Care, Work Flows and Staff at a University Hospital: Results of an Interview-study at the UKE]. / Auswirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie auf die klinische Versorgung, Arbeitsprozesse und Mitarbeitenden in der Universitätsmedizin: Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie am UKE.

OBJECTIVES: The study investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health services with and without specific health care of COVID-19 patients through the eyes of leading physicians at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). METHODS: From April 30 to May 12, 2020, four interviewers conducted 38 expert interviews via telephone, video or face-to-face by using a semi-standardized questionnaire. The standardized answers were analysed descriptively. The free text-answers were subject to a qualitative content analysis. The categories were analysed via quantitative frequency distributions. RESULTS: All chief physicians with responsibility for inpatient and outpatient health care at the UKE took part in this study (N=38). The leading physicians reported numerous changes regarding occupancy in the hospital, patient composition, work flows and diagnostic as well as therapeutic measures. Additionally, various arrangements were necessary to cover the needs of prevention, treatment and follow-up care as well as protection of staff. Measures showed, on the one hand, a strong reduction in occupancy and workload in most inpatient and outpatient clinics. On the other hand, the amount of work also increased by fundamental transitions of work flows, communication, staff structure and hygiene measures. Many respondents commented positively on the rapid and efficient setup of a digital communication structure. Partially, staff was strained by the pandemic itself and by the associated measures. CONCLUSION: The results of the study help to understand and assess the effects of the pandemic on health care, work flows and staff. The findings may support the specification and adaptation of prospective measures and processes for pandemic crisis situations. Future studies should investigate how staff beneath the highest executive level experienced and evaluated this crisis and consequences.