Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
JMIR Form Res ; 6(1): e29889, 2022 Jan 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1662505


BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infection (ARI) in childhood is common, but more knowledge on the burden and natural history of ARI in the community is required. A better understanding of ARI risk factors, treatment, and outcomes will help support parents to manage their sick child at home. Digital health tools are becoming more widely adopted in clinical care and research and may assist in understanding and managing common pediatric diseases, including ARI, in hospitals and in the community. We integrated 2 digital tools-a web-based discharge communication system and the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) platform-into the Pragmatic Adaptive Trial for Acute Respiratory Infection in Children to enhance parent and physician engagement around ARI discharge communication and our patient registry. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine the efficacy and usability of digital tools integrated into a pediatric patient registry for ARI. METHODS: Semistructured interviews and software interface usability testing were conducted with 11 parents and 8 emergency department physicians working at a tertiary pediatric hospital and research center in Perth, Western Australia, in 2019. Questions focused on experiences of discharge communication and clinical trial engagement. Responses were analyzed using the qualitative Framework Method. Participants were directly observed using digital interfaces as they attempted predetermined tasks that were then classified as success, failure, software failure, or not observed. Participants rated the interfaces using the System Usability Scale (SUS). RESULTS: Most parents (9/11, 82%) indicated that they usually received verbal discharge advice, with some (5/11, 45%) recalling receiving preprinted resources from their physician. Most (8/11, 73%) would also like to receive discharge advice electronically. Most of the physicians (7/8, 88%) described their usual practice as verbal discharge instructions, with some (3/8, 38%) reporting time pressures associated with providing discharge instructions. The digital technology option was preferred for engaging in research by most parents (8/11, 73%). For the discharge communication digital tool, parents gave a mean SUS score of 94/100 (SD 4.3; A grade) for the mobile interface and physicians gave a mean usability score of 93/100 (SD 4.7; A grade) for the desktop interface. For the research data management tool (REDCap), parents gave a mean usability score of 78/100 (SD 11.0; C grade) for the mobile interface. CONCLUSIONS: Semistructured interviews allowed us to better understand parent and physician experiences of discharge communication and clinical research engagement. Software interface usability testing methods and use of the SUS helped us gauge the efficacy of our digital tools with both parent and physician users. This study demonstrates the feasibility of combining qualitative research methods with software industry interface usability testing methods to help determine the efficacy of digital tools in a pediatric clinical research setting.

Vaccine ; 40(4): 594-600, 2022 01 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1586279


BACKGROUND: On 8th April 2021, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) made the Pfizer-BioNtech (Comirnaty) vaccine the "preferred" vaccine for adults in Australia aged < 50 years due to a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following AstraZeneca vaccination. We sought to understand whether this impacted COVID-19 vaccine intentions. METHOD: We undertook qualitative interviews from February - April 2021 before and after the program change with 28 adults in Perth, Western Australia. Using our COVID-19 vaccine intentions model, we assessed changes in participants' COVID-19 vaccine intention before and after the program change. Participants were classified as 1) 'acceptors': no concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy, access and would accept whatever vaccine is offered, 2) 'cautious acceptors': some concerns and would prefer a particular vaccine brand but would accept whatever is offered, 3) 'Wait awhile': for more data, easier access, for another vaccine brand, a greater perceived COVID-19 threat or until mandatory, or 4) 'refuser': no intention to vaccinate due to concerns about safety and/or efficacy. RESULTS: Before the change, 7/18 of those aged < 50 years were 'acceptors,' 10/18 were 'cautious acceptors' and 1/18 was 'wait awhile.' Overall, 14/18 participants had the same COVID-19 vaccine intention after the change; 4/18 became more concerned. For those aged ≥ 50 years and before the change, 5/10 were 'acceptors' and 5/10 were 'cautious acceptors.' After the change, 8/10 still had the same COVID-19 vaccine intention; 2/10 became more cautious. The major concern before the program change was COVID-19 vaccines having different vaccine efficacy; the concern pivoted to safety. CONCLUSION: The majority of participants were 'cautious acceptors' who intended on being vaccinated; many had this intention before and after the program change. The Australian government, health care providers and media need to better address COVID-19 vaccine concerns to assist those with COVID-19 vaccine intentions receive a vaccine.

COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , Australia , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Intention , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
Vaccine ; 2021 Nov 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1541011


BACKGROUND: The rollout of vaccines against COVID-19 is prompting governments and the private sector to adopt mandates. However, there has been little conceptual analysis of the types of mandates available, nor empirical analysis of how the public thinks about different mandates and why. Our conceptual study examines available instruments, how they have been implemented pre-COVID, and their use for COVID-19 globally. Then, our qualitative study reports the acceptability of such measures in Western Australia, which has experienced very limited community transmission, posing an interesting scenario for vaccine acceptance and acceptability of measures to enforce it. METHOD: Our conceptual study developed categories of mandates from extant work, news reports, and legislative interventions globally. Then, our empirical study asked 44 West Australians about their attitudes towards potential mandatory policies, with data analysed using NVivo 12. RESULTS: Our novel studies contribute richness and depth to emerging literature on the types and varying acceptability of vaccine requirements. Participants demonstrated tensions and confusion about whether instruments were incentives or punishments, and many supported strong consequences for non-vaccination even if they ostensibly opposed mandates. Those attached to restrictions for disease prevention were most popular. There were similar degrees of support for mandates imposed by employers or businesses, with participants showing little concern for potential issues of accountability linked to public health decisions delegated to the private sector. Participants mostly supported tightly regulated medical exemptions granted by specialists, with little interest in religious or personal belief exemptions. CONCLUSION: Our participants are used to being governed by vaccine mandates, and now by rigorous lockdown and travel restrictions that have ensured limited local COVID-19 disease and transmission. These factors appear influential in their general openness to COVID-19 vaccine mandates, especially when linked explicitly to the prevention of disease in high-risk settings.