ABSTRACT
Rapid research is essential to assess impacts in communities affected by disasters, particularly those communities made "hard-to-reach" due to their active marginalization across history and in contemporary practices. In this article, we describe two rapid research projects developed to assess needs for and experiences of communities hard-hit by disasters. The first is a project on the COVID-19 pandemic in southern New Mexico (USA) that was developed to provide information to local agencies that are deploying programs to rebuild and revitalize marginalized communities. The second is a project on population displacement due to a volcanic eruption in Vanuatu, a lower-middle income country in the South Pacific, with mental and physical health outcomes data shared with the Vanuatu Ministry of Health. We describe the similar and unique challenges that arose doing rapid research in these two different contexts, the potential broader impacts of the research, and a synthesis of lessons learned. We discuss the challenges of rapidly changing rules and regulations, lack of baseline data, lack of survey instruments validated for specific populations and in local languages, limited availability of community partners, finding funding for rapid deployment of projects, rapidly training and working with research assistants, health and safety concerns of researchers and participants, and communicating with local and international partners. We also specifically discuss how we addressed our own personal challenges while also conducting time-intensive rapid research. In both studies, researchers shared results with governmental and non-governmental partners who may use the data to inform the design of their own relief programs. While different in context, type of disaster, and research strategy, our discussion of these projects provides insights into common lessons learned for working with communities at elevated risk for the worst outcomes during disasters, such as the need for flexibility, compromise, and good working relationships with community partners.
ABSTRACT
This study sought to identify barriers and facilitators to successful smart insulin pen (SIP) use and gauge prescribing practices and integration into clinical practice by assessing provider and care team perspectives at participating endocrinology clinics within the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The identified provider-related, patient-related, and clinic- and operational-level barriers and facilitators varied based on clinic knowledge, capacity, and resources. High-impact barriers included insurance coverage and prescribing processes; high-impact facilitators included improved diabetes clinic visit quality and use of SIPs as an alternative to insulin pump therapy. Findings indicated the need for provider and care team education and training on proper SIP features, use, and prescribing.
ABSTRACT
Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of vaccines, varying levels of hesitancy were observed among healthcare and long-term care workers, who were prioritized in the roll out of COVID-19 vaccines due to their high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the evidence around the measurable impact of various educational interventions to improve vaccine confidence is limited. The proposed scoping review is intended to explore any emerging research and experiences of delivering educational interventions to improve COVID-19 vaccine confidence among health and long-term care workforces. We aim to identify characteristics of both informal and formal educational interventions delivered during the pandemic to support COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Using the guidance outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute, we intend to search five databases including, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, as well as grey literature. We will consider all study designs and reports in an effort to include a breadth of sources to ensure our review will capture preliminary evidence, as well as more exploratory experiences of COVID-19 vaccine education delivery. Articles will be screened by three reviewers independently and the data will be charted, and results described narratively.