ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There are no psychometrically validated measures of the willingness to engage in public health screening and prevention efforts, particularly mobile health (mHealth)-based tracking, that can be adapted to future crises post-COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: The psychometric properties of a novel measure of the willingness to participate in pandemic-related screening and tracking, including the willingness to use pandemic-related mHealth tools, were tested. METHODS: Data were from a cross-sectional, national probability survey deployed in 3 cross-sectional stages several weeks apart to adult residents of the United States (N=6475; stage 1 n=2190, 33.82%; stage 2 n=2238, 34.56%; and stage 3 n=2047, 31.62%) from the AmeriSpeak probability-based research panel covering approximately 97% of the US household population. Five items asked about the willingness to use mHealth tools for COVID-19-related screening and tracking and provide biological specimens for COVID-19 testing. RESULTS: In the first, exploratory sample, 3 of 5 items loaded onto 1 underlying factor, the willingness to use pandemic-related mHealth tools, based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA). A 2-factor solution, including the 3-item factor, fit the data (root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=0.038, comparative fit index [CFI]=1.000, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]=0.005), and the factor loadings for the 3 items ranged from 0.849 to 0.893. In the second, validation sample, the reliability of the 3-item measure was high (Cronbach α=.90), and 1 underlying factor for the 3 items was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA): RMSEA=0, CFI=1.000, SRMR=0 (a saturated model); factor loadings ranged from 1.000 to 0.962. The factor was independently associated with COVID-19-preventive behaviors (eg, "worn a face mask": r=0.313, SE=0.041, P<.001; "kept a 6-foot distance from those outside my household": r=0.282, SE=0.050, P<.001) and the willingness to provide biological specimens for COVID-19 testing (ie, swab to cheek or nose: r=0.709, SE=0.017, P<.001; small blood draw: r=0.684, SE=0.019, P<.001). In the third, multiple-group sample, the measure was invariant, or measured the same thing in the same way (ie, difference in CFI [ΔCFI]<0.010 across all grouping categories), across age groups, gender, racial/ethnic groups, education levels, US geographic region, and population density (ie, rural, suburban, urban). When repeated across different samples, factor-analytic findings were essentially the same. Additionally, there were mean differences (ΔM) in the willingness to use mHealth tools across samples, mainly based on race or ethnicity and population density. For example, in SD units, suburban (ΔM=-0.30, SE=0.13, P=.001) and urban (ΔM=-0.42, SE=0.12, P<.001) adults showed less willingness to use mHealth tools than rural adults in the third sample collected on May 30-June 8, 2020, but no differences were detected in the first sample collected on April 20-26, 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Findings showed that the screener is psychometrically valid. It can also be adapted to future public health crises. Racial and ethnic minority adults showed a greater willingness to use mHealth tools than White adults. Rural adults showed more mHealth willingness than suburban and urban adults. Findings have implications for public health screening and tracking and understanding digital health inequities, including lack of uptake.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To identify missed opportunities for healthcare providers to discuss HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with people who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: Participants were 395 HIV-negative PWID recruited for the 2018 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance survey in San Francisco, California via respondent-driven sampling. Adjusted logistic regression tested whether discussing PrEP with a provider in the last year was associated with sociodemographic characteristics, structural factors, and accessing HIV/STI and substance use treatment services. RESULTS: Most PWID (86.3%) reported seeing a healthcare provider, but only 15.0% of these reported discussing PrEP with a healthcare provider. PWID who were sexual minority men had greater odds of having a discussion about PrEP with a healthcare provider than PWID who were heterosexual men (aOR=3.42, 95% CI=1.21-9.73) or heterosexual women (aOR=3.69, 95% CI=1.08-12.62). Additionally, factors associated with discussing PrEP included: being tested for HIV (aOR=4.29, 95% CI=1.21-15.29), having a healthcare provider recommend HIV testing (aOR=2.95, 95% CI=1.23-7.06), and receiving free condoms from a prevention program (aOR=5.45, 95% CI=1.78-16.65). CONCLUSIONS: In the face of low PrEP uptake, continuing HIV transmission, and many missed opportunities to discussed PrEP (e.g., PWID who are women, substance use treatment services), these findings from San Francisco indicate that healthcare providers and public health efforts need to systematically offer PrEP to PWID. Additional research may clarify missed opportunities in other locations as well as the impact of COVID-19.