Peripartum women's perspectives on research study participation in the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium during COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented need for population-level clinical trials focused on the discovery of life-saving therapies and treatments. However, there is limited information on perception of research participation among perinatal populations, a population of particular interest during the pandemic. Methods: Eligible respondents were 18 years or older, were currently pregnant or had an infant (≤12 months old), and lived in Florida within 50 miles of sites participating in the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium. Respondents were recruited via Qualtrics panels between April and September 2020. Respondents completed survey items about barriers and facilitators to participation and answered sociodemographic questions. Results: Of 533 respondents, most were between 25 and 34 years of age (n = 259, 49%) and identified as White (n = 303, 47%) and non-Hispanic (n = 344, 65%). Facebook was the most popular social media platform among our respondents. The most common barriers to research participation included poor explanation of study goals, discomforts to the infant, and time commitment. Recruitment through healthcare providers was perceived as the best way to learn about clinical research studies. When considering research participation, "myself" had the greatest influence, followed by familial ties. Noninvasive biological samples were highly acceptable. Hispanics had higher positive perspectives on willingness to participate in a randomized study (p = 0.009). Education (p = 0.007) had significant effects on willingness to release personal health information. Conclusion: When recruiting women during the pregnancy and postpartum periods for perinatal studies, investigators should consider protocols that account for common barriers and preferred study information sources. Social media-based recruitment is worthy of adoption.

COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and hesitancy amongst parents of school-aged children during the pediatric vaccine rollout.

BACKGROUND: The United States has the highest number of total cases and deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide (Johns Hopkins COVID Dashboard, 2021). Despite COVID-19 vaccine availability, uptake in the United States has been slow and vaccine hesitancy has been a significant barrier to achieving widespread vaccine uptake. Understanding determinants of vaccine acceptance is essential to implement successful population health interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We developed an anonymous cross-sectional parent survey to assess factors associated with parent and child COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy during the initial pediatric vaccine rollout amongst adolescents 16 years +. The survey was sent via email to 25,308 parents registered to the Alachua County Public School System in May 2021 and remained active until July 2021. FINDINGS: There were a total of 2,620 survey responses. Overall, 31.5 % of parents with children ages 16 years + reported their child had received the COVID-19 vaccine, 65.2 % reported their (eligible) child had not received the vaccine, and 3.3 % reported their child was scheduled for the vaccine. A majority of parents (60.9 %) reported they planned to vaccinate all of their children once the COVID-19 vaccine was available for their children's age. COVID-19 vaccine uptake in adolescents ages 16 + reported by Hispanic and White parents was two times higher than that reported by Black parents. Parent COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake were associated with increased child COVID-19 vaccination. The most commonly reported reasons why parents chose not to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19 were concerns about long-term negative side effects (75.7 %) and a negative reaction (56.5 %). Medical providers were reported as the most trusted source of information. CONCLUSION: Our study provides insight into determinants of vaccine acceptance, vaccine hesitancy, and trusted sources of information that may be helpful to develop targeted interventions to increase youth COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 Vaccine Perceptions & Hesitancy amongst Parents of School-aged Children during the Pediatric Vaccine Rollout

Background The United States has the highest number of total cases and deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide (Johns Hopkins COVID Dashboard, 2021). [1] Despite COVID-19 vaccine availability, uptake in the United States has been slow and vaccine hesitancy has been a significant barrier to achieving herd immunity. Understanding determinants of vaccine acceptance is essential to implement successful population health interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination. Methods We developed an anonymous cross-sectional parent survey to assess factors associated with parent and child COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy during the initial pediatric vaccine rollout amongst adolescents 16 years +. The survey was sent via email to 25,308 parents registered to the Alachua County Public School System in May 2021 and remained active until July 2021. Findings There were a total of 2,620 survey responses. Overall, 31.5% of parents with children ages 16 years + reported their child had received the COVID-19 vaccine, 65.2% reported their (eligible) child had not received the vaccine, and 3.3% reported their child was scheduled for the vaccine. A majority of parents (60.9%) reported they planned to vaccinate all of their children once the COVID-19 vaccine was available for their children’s age. COVID-19 vaccine uptake in adolescents ages 16+ reported by Hispanic and White parents was two times higher than that reported by Black parents. Parent COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake were associated with increased child COVID-19 vaccination. The most commonly reported reasons why parents chose not to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19 were concerns about long–term negative side effects (75.7%) and a negative reaction (56.5%). Medical providers were reported as the most trusted source of information. Conclusion Our study provides insight into determinants of vaccine acceptance, vaccine hesitancy, and trusted sources of information that may be helpful to develop targeted interventions to increase youth COVID-19 vaccination.

Telemedicine in Pediatric Training: A National Needs Assessment of the Current State of Telemedicine Education in Pediatric Training.

PURPOSE: To describe the current state of telemedicine within pediatric training programs to inform development of a national telemedicine training curriculum for pediatric trainees. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous cross-sectional survey of pediatric residency (Fall 2020) and fellowship program directors (Spring 2021) on their current telemedicine practices in pediatric post-graduate training. RESULTS: Forty-eight US pediatric residency programs (n = 48/198, 24%) and 422 fellowship programs completed the survey (n = 422/872, 48%); combined response rate 44% (n = 470/1070). Pre-COVID-19, 12% (n = 57/470) of programs surveyed reported using telemedicine in their training program, but during the pandemic 71% (n = 334/470) reported telemedicine use with trainees. Over 71% (n = 334/470) agreed that a formalized curriculum is important, yet 69% (n = 262/380) of programs reporting telemedicine use either did not have a curriculum or were unsure if one existed at their program. Respondents who were unsure/not likely to add a telemedicine curriculum and/or indicated that a telemedicine curriculum would not be important (52% n = 243/470), cited "time" (55%, n = 136/243) most frequently as a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Our needs assessment indicates marked increase in use of telemedicine with trainees by respondent pediatric training programs, with fewer than 50% reporting a formalized training curriculum and most agreeing that a curriculum is important.

The influence of selection bias on identifying an association between allergy medication use and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Medications to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2 infection are needed to complement emerging vaccinations. Recent in vitro and electronic health record (EHR) studies suggested that certain allergy medications could prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to carefully examine the potential selection bias associated with utilizing EHRs in these settings. METHODS: We analyzed associations of three allergy medications (cetirizine, diphenhydramine or hydroxyzine) with testing negative for SARS-CoV-2, measuring the potential effect of selection bias on these associations. We used a retrospective cohort of EHR data from 230,376 patients (18 years+) who visited outpatient clinicians in a single, large academic center at least once but were never hospitalized (10/1/2019-6/1/2020). Main exposures included EHR documentation of three allergy medications and allergy, with an intermediate outcome of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test, and the primary outcome as testing negative. FINDINGS: SARS-CoV-2 testing rates varied by sex, age, race/ethnicity and insurance. Increasing age and public insurance were associated with a higher adjusted odds of test negativity, while being Black or Hispanic was significantly associated with test positivity. Allergy diagnosis and use of any of three allergy medications were each associated with a higher likelihood of receiving a test (e.g. diphenhydramine - Odds Ratio (OR) 2.99, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.73, 3.28; cetirizine 1.75 (95% CI 1.60, 1.92)). Among those tested, only use of diphenhydramine was associated with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test (adjusted OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.10, 4.55). However, analyses revealed that selection bias may be responsible for the apparent protective effect of diphenhydramine. INTERPRETATION: Diphenhydramine use was associated with more SARS-CoV-2 testing and subsequent higher odds for negative tests. While EHR-based observational studies can inform a need for interventional trials, this study revealed limitations of EHR data. The finding that diphenhydramine documentation conferred a higher odds of testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 must be interpreted with caution due to probable selection bias.Abbreviations: SARS-CoV-2, ACE2, COVID-19, EHR.