Increasing Access to a Diverse Mental Health Workforce through Emergency Reciprocity Licensure

New Jersey's COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Reciprocity Licensure Program provided temporary licenses to more than 31000 out-of-state healthcare practitioners, over a quarter of whom were mental health providers. As the need for mental health care accelerated during the pandemic, especially among health disparity populations, expanding mental health provider pools may be a critical tool to increase access to care. In January 2021, we surveyed New Jersey's temporary licensees. We analyzed over 4500 mental health provider responses to examine the impact of the temporary licensure program on access to mental health care overall and on enhancing a diverse mental health workforce. Over 3700 respondents used their temporary license to provide mental health care to New Jersey patients. About 7% of respondents self-identified as Hispanic, 12% Black, 6% Asian, 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0% (more than 5) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. They treated about 30100 New Jersey patients, 40% of whom were new to the provider, and 81% delivered care exclusively using telehealth. Respondents conversed with patients in at least 13 languages. About 53% served at least one patient from an underserved racial/ethnic minority group. Our findings suggest that temporary out-of-state mental health providers helped enhance mental health care continuity and access. Copyright 2023 Federation of State Medical Boards. All Rights Reserved.

A plain language summary of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety as a single dose and with a booster

Summary What is this summary about? This is a summary of the results of 2 global clinical studies of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against COVID-19. The ENSEMBLE study looked at the effectiveness of a single injection of the vaccine. The separate ENSEMBLE2 study looked at the effectiveness of a booster dose of the vaccine given 2 months after the first dose. In both studies, people received either the vaccine or a placebo. Vaccine effectiveness was evaluated 14 and 28 days after vaccination to allow sufficient time for generation of an immune response. What were the results? In ENSEMBLE, compared to the placebo, a single dose of the vaccine prevented: 56% of moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 cases occurring at least 14 days after vaccination 53% of moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 cases occurring at least 28 days after vaccination 75% of severe-critical COVID-19 cases occurring at least 28 days after vaccination 76% of people with COVID-19 from needing to be hospitalized for treatment 83% of COVID-19-related deaths The vaccine continued to work well for at least 6 months after a single vaccine injection. In ENSEMBLE2, compared to the placebo, a single dose of the vaccine followed by a booster dose 2 months later prevented: 75% of moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 cases occurring at least 14 days after booster vaccination 100% of severe-critical COVID-19 cases occurring at least 14 days after booster vaccination In ENSEMBLE2, there were too few cases of COVID-19 to estimate vaccine effectiveness for preventing COVID-19-related deaths or hospitalization. ENSEMBLE2 was done during early 2021, when several COVID-19 vaccines became available by emergency use authorization. For ethical reasons, people could check whether they had received vaccine or placebo and decide whether they could be vaccinated outside of the study. This meant that the researchers could not look at the long-term effectiveness of the vaccine. In both studies, after receiving the vaccine, some people experienced pain at the injection site, headache, tiredness, muscle pain, and nausea. In most cases, these were mild and went away within a few days. Serious side effects were very rare. In ENSEMBLE, blood clots, seizures, hives, and ringing in the ears were more common in the people who got the vaccine than in those who got the placebo. These side effects were very rare. In ENSEMBLE2, bleeding, hives, and ringing in the ears were slightly more common in people who got the vaccine than those who got the placebo. In ENSEMBLE2, blood clots were more common in people who got the placebo. At the time of the study, it was not clear if these side effects were caused by the vaccine. What do the results of the study mean? The vaccine was effective at protecting against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 at 14 days after a single injection. Effectiveness was increased by a booster injection given 2 months after the first injection. You can find more detailed information and references in the original articles. Links to these articles can be found at the end of this summary. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04505722 and NCT04614948 (ClinicalTrials.gov) </sec.Copyright © 2022 The Authors.

Online Food Security Discussion Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Community Groups and Organizations: Content Analysis of Facebook Posts.

Background: The Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) population experiences disproportionately higher rates of food insecurity, which is a risk factor for cardiometabolic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, when compared to white individuals. Novel and effective approaches that address food insecurity are needed for the NHPI population, particularly in areas of the continental United States, which is a popular migration area for many NHPI families. Social media may serve as an opportune setting to reduce food insecurity and thus the risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases among NHPI people; however, it is unclear if and how food insecurity is discussed in online communities targeting NHPI individuals. Objective: The objective of this study was to characterize the quantity, nature, and audience engagement of messages related to food insecurity posted online in community groups and organizations that target NHPI audiences. Methods: Publicly accessible Facebook pages and groups focused on serving NHPI community members living in the states of Washington or Oregon served as the data source. Facebook posts between March and June 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) and from March to June 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) that were related to food security were identified using a set of 36 related keywords. Data on the post and any user engagement (ie, comments, shares, or digital reactions) were extracted for all relevant posts. A content analytical approach was used to identify and quantify the nature of the identified posts and any related comments. The codes resulting from the content analysis were described and compared by year, page type, and engagement. Results: Of the 1314 nonduplicated posts in the 7 relevant Facebook groups and pages, 88 were related to food security (8 in 2019 and 80 in 2020). The nature of posts was broadly classified into literature-based codes, food assistance (the most common), perspectives of food insecurity, community gratitude and support, and macrolevel contexts. Among the 88 posts, 74% (n=65) had some form of engagement, and posts reflecting community gratitude and support or culture had more engagement than others (mean 19.9, 95% CI 11.2-28.5 vs mean 6.1, 95% CI 1.7-10.4; and mean 26.8, 95% CI 12.7-40.9 vs mean 5.3, 95% CI 3.0-7.7, respectively). Conclusions: Food security-related posts in publicly accessible Facebook groups targeting NHPI individuals living in Washington and Oregon largely focused on food assistance, although cultural values of gratitude, maintaining NHPI culture, and supporting children were also reflected. Future work should capitalize on social media as a potential avenue to reach a unique cultural group in the United States experiencing inequitably high rates of food insecurity and risk of cardiometabolic diseases.

Baltimore City Health Department COVID-19 Community-based Testing Results

Background. The Baltimore City Health Department (BCHD) began community-based COVID-19 testing in response to the pandemic on April 21, 2020. The purpose was to provide access to COVID-19 testing to underserved communities. BCHD designed the program to accommodate transportation limitations, limited-access to internet and phones, and non-English speakers. BCHD has continued hosting up to five community-based testing sites per week. This analysis examines the test results of BCHD's COVID-19 community-based testing program to date. Methods. Patients completed an intake form, which included demographic information, at the testing event, prior to providing their specimen for COVID-19 testing. For this analysis, patient demographics and test results were analyzed using REDCap software. Results. Total test volume for year 2020 (4/21/2020 -12/30/2020) was 15,839, year 2021 (1/5/2021- 12/30/2021) was 13,087, and year 2022 (1/4/2022 - 4/1/2022) was 2,261. Average percent positivity for year 2020 was 9%, year 2021 was 7%, and year 2022 to date was 6%. Patient ethnicity was Non-Hispanic 85.5%, Hispanic 13.5%, and Did not respond/Don't know 1.0%. Race was Black or African America 61.1%, White 25.0%, Asian 2.8%, American Indian/Alaska Native 0.1%, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.1%, and Unknown 10.7%. Total positive COVID-19 results among Black/African Americans in 2020, 2021, and 2022 respectively were 1567 (12.8%), 1177 (15.1%), and 218 (22.1%). Total positive COVID-19 results among White in 2020, 2021, and 2022 respectively were 541 (10.1%), 441 (12.1%), and 60 (15.1%) respectively. Total positive COVID-19 results among Asians in 2020, 2021, and 2022 were 63 (20.9%), 47 (11.0%), and 4 (25.5%) respectively. Total positive COVID-19 results among Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander in 2020, 2021, and 2022 respectively were 4 (16.7%), 4 (20.0%), and 2 (0.0%) respectively. Total positive COVID-19 results among American Indian/Alaskan in 2020, 2021, and 2022 were 3 (13.6%), 1 (7.1%), and 2 (66.7%) respectively. Conclusion. BCHD's community-based testing program has completed over 31,000 tests to date. COVID-19 percent positivity among patients showed a decline across the three years. This analysis demonstrates how a local health department can provide testing to the communities.

Why is influenza vaccine uptake so low among Aboriginal adults?

Objectives: Determine major barriers to, and facilitators of, influenza vaccination of Aboriginal adults, in order to improve coverage from the current level of 30%.Methods: i) A focus group with 13 Aboriginal Immunisation Healthcare Workers;and ii) a cross‐sectional survey of Aboriginal people aged ≥18 years at the 2017 New South Wales Koori Knockout (29 September–2 October).Results: The focus group nominated poor identification of Aboriginality in general practice. Of 273 survey respondents, a substantial minority (30%) were unaware of their eligibility for free influenza vaccination. More than half (52%) believed the vaccine could cause influenza, 40% reported there were better ways than vaccination for avoiding infection and 30% said they would not have the vaccine if it was offered to them. Regarding health service access, few reported experiencing difficulty (17%), feeling uncomfortable (15%) or being discriminated against (8%), but 53% reported not receiving a reminder from a health professional.Conclusions: Misconceptions about influenza disease and vaccine among Aboriginal people and inadequate identification of Aboriginality in general practice appear to be the greatest barriers to vaccination, rather than health service access in general.Implications for public health: More active communication to and targeting of Aboriginal adults is required;this is even more urgent following the arrival of COVID‐19.