Medical avoidance among marginalized groups: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Medical avoidance is common among U.S. adults, and may be emphasized among members of marginalized communities due to discrimination concerns. In the current study, we investigated whether this disparity in avoidance was maintained or exacerbated during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the likelihood of avoiding medical care due to general-, discrimination-, and COVID-19-related concerns in an online sample (N = 471). As hypothesized, marginalized groups (i.e., non-White race, Latinx/e ethnicity, non-heterosexual sexual orientation, high BMI) endorsed more general- and discrimination-related medical avoidance than majoritized groups. However, marginalized groups were equally likely to seek COVID-19 treatment as majoritized groups. Implications for reducing medical avoidance among marginalized groups are discussed.

Assessment of Communication Strategies for Mitigating COVID-19 Vaccine-Specific Hesitancy in Canada.

Importance: Ensuring widespread uptake of available COVID-19 vaccinations, each with different safety and efficacy profiles, is essential to combating the unfolding pandemic. Objective: To test communication interventions that may encourage the uptake of less-preferred vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This online survey was conducted from March 24 to 30, 2021, using a nonprobability convenience sample of Canadian citizens aged 18 years or older, with quota sampling to match 2016 Canadian Census benchmarks on age, gender, region, and language. Respondents completed a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial experiment with random assignment of brand (AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson), information about the vaccine's effectiveness against symptomatic infection (yes or no), and information about the vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (yes or no) before being asked about their willingness to receive their assigned vaccine and their beliefs about its effectiveness. Exposures: Respondents were randomly assigned a vaccine brand (AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson) and information about the vaccine's effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 infection (yes or no) and at preventing death from COVID-19 (yes or no). Main Outcomes and Measures: Respondents' self-reported likelihood of taking their assigned vaccine if offered (response categories: very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely, scaled 0-1) and their beliefs about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness (response categories: very effective, somewhat effective, not very effective, or not at all effective, scaled 0-1) were measured. Results: A total of 2556 Canadian adults responded to the survey (median [IQR] age, 50 [34-63] years; 1339 women [52%]). The self-reported likelihood of taking an assigned AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson vaccine was higher for respondents given information about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (b, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06) and lower among those given information about its overall effectiveness at preventing symptomatic transmission (b, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.00), compared with those who were not given the information. Perceived effectiveness was also higher among those given information about their assigned vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death from COVID-19 (b, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.05) and lower among those given information about their assigned vaccine's overall efficacy at preventing symptomatic infection (b, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.03), compared with those who were not given this information. The interaction between these treatments was neither substantively nor statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that providing information on the effectiveness of less-preferred vaccines at preventing death from COVID-19 is associated with more confidence in their effectiveness and less vaccine-specific hesitancy. These results can inform public health communication strategies to reduce hesitancy toward specific COVID-19 vaccines.

Factors Associated With Voluntary Refusal of Emergency Medical System Transport for Emergency Care in Detroit During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Emergency department (ED) and emergency medical services (EMS) volumes decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the amount attributable to voluntary refusal vs effects of the pandemic and public health restrictions is unknown. Objective: To examine the factors associated with EMS refusal in relation to COVID-19 cases, public health interventions, EMS responses, and prehospital deaths. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Detroit, Michigan, from March 1 to June 30, 2020. Emergency medical services responses geocoded to Census tracts were analyzed by individuals' age, sex, date, and community resilience using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index. Response counts were adjusted with Poisson regression, and odds of refusals and deaths were adjusted by logistic regression. Exposures: A COVID-19 outbreak characterized by a peak in local COVID-19 incidence and the strictest stay-at-home orders to date, followed by a nadir in incidence and broadly lifted restrictions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable-adjusted difference in 2020 vs 2019 responses by incidence rate and refusals or deaths by odds. The Social Vulnerability Index was used to capture community social determinants of health as a risk factor for death or refusal. The index contains 4 domain subscores; possible overall score is 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating greater vulnerability. Results: A total of 80 487 EMS responses with intended ED transport, 2059 prehospital deaths, and 16 064 refusals (62 636 completed EMS to ED transports) from 334 Census tracts were noted during the study period. Of the cohort analyzed, 38 621 were women (48%); mean (SD) age was 49.0 (21.4) years, and mean (SD) Social Vulnerability Index score was 9.6 (1.6). Tracts with the highest per-population EMS transport refusal rates were characterized by higher unemployment, minority race/ethnicity, single-parent households, poverty, disability, lack of vehicle access, and overall Social Vulnerability Index score (9.6 vs 9.0, P = .002). At peak COVID-19 incidence and maximal stay-at-home orders, there were higher total responses (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR], 1.07; 1.03-1.12), odds of deaths (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.12), and refusals (aOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 2.09-2.60) but fewer completed ED transports (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). With public health restrictions lifted and the nadir of COVID-19 cases, responses (aIRR, 1.01; 0.97-1.05) and deaths (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.81-1.41) returned to 2019 baselines, but differences in refusals (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14-1.41) and completed transports (aIRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99) remained. Multivariable-adjusted 2020 refusal was associated with female sex (aOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 2.43-3.03 in 2020 at the peak; aOR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.32-1.64 at the nadir). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, EMS transport refusals increased with the COVID-19 outbreak's peak and remained elevated despite receding public health restrictions, COVID-19 incidence, total EMS responses, and prehospital deaths. Voluntary refusal was associated with decreased EMS transports to EDs, disproportionately so among women and vulnerable communities.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Canada: Content Analysis of Tweets Using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: With the approval of two COVID-19 vaccines in Canada, many people feel a sense of relief, as hope is on the horizon. However, only about 75% of people in Canada plan to receive one of the vaccines. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the reasons why people in Canada feel hesitant toward receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: We screened 3915 tweets from public Twitter profiles in Canada by using the search words "vaccine" and "COVID." The tweets that met the inclusion criteria (ie, those about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy) were coded via content analysis. Codes were then organized into themes and interpreted by using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Overall, 605 tweets were identified as those about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy stemmed from the following themes: concerns over safety, suspicion about political or economic forces driving the COVID-19 pandemic or vaccine development, a lack of knowledge about the vaccine, antivaccine or confusing messages from authority figures, and a lack of legal liability from vaccine companies. This study also examined mistrust toward the medical industry not due to hesitancy, but due to the legacy of communities marginalized by health care institutions. These themes were categorized into the following five Theoretical Domains Framework constructs: knowledge, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, social influence, and emotion. CONCLUSIONS: With the World Health Organization stating that one of the worst threats to global health is vaccine hesitancy, it is important to have a comprehensive understanding of the reasons behind this reluctance. By using a behavioral science framework, this study adds to the emerging knowledge about vaccine hesitancy in relation to COVID-19 vaccines by analyzing public discourse in tweets in real time. Health care leaders and clinicians may use this knowledge to develop public health interventions that are responsive to the concerns of people who are hesitant to receive vaccines.

[Acceptability of neonatal screening of the sickle cell disease during the pandemic of COVID-19 in Kisangani, Democratic Republic of the Congo]. / Acceptabilité du dépistage néonatal de la drépanocytose au cours de la pandémie au COVID-19 à Kisangani, en République Démocratique du Congo.

INTRODUCTION: the implementation of neonatal screening to identify infants with sickle cell disease during the COVID-19 pandemic is a major challenge in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The purpose of this study is to determine whether socio-economic factors are associated with acceptability of newborn screening to identify infants with sickle cell disease during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kisangani, DRC. METHODS: we conducted an observational study of mothers sensitized to neonatal screening to detect sickle cell disease in their newborns with hemotypeSCTM (HT401RUO-USA). The study was carried out at the maternity wards in Kisangani from March 21st to June 30th 2020. Collected data were parity, educational level, age, socio-economic level, occupation, awareness and the reason for the denial of screening. RESULTS: out of 55.5% (273/492) of sensitized mothers, 107 (39.19%) accepted and 166 (60.80%) refused neonatal screening to detect sickle cell disease in their newborn. The reasons for refusal were lack of information (67.5%; 95% CI [59.8-74.5]), lack of money due to confinement (66.3%; 95% CI [58.5-73.4]), blood test to develop a vaccine for protection against COVID-19 (63.2%; 95% CI = [55.4-70.6]). Factors associated with the acceptability of screening were age > 35 years (p = 0.0009; ORa = 3.04; 95% CI = 1.57-5.87) and low socio-economic level (p = 0.0016; ORa = 2.29; 95% CI = 1.37-3.85). CONCLUSION: the acceptability of neonatal screening to detect sickle cell disease during COVID-19 is low in Kisangani. The government should identify effective communication channels to promote health care initiatives.

Underdetection of cases of COVID-19 in France threatens epidemic control.

As countries in Europe gradually relaxed lockdown restrictions after the first wave, test-trace-isolate strategies became critical to maintain the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at low levels1,2. Reviewing their shortcomings can provide elements to consider in light of the second wave that is currently underway in Europe. Here we estimate the rate of detection of symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in France after lockdown through the use of virological3 and participatory syndromic4 surveillance data coupled with mathematical transmission models calibrated to regional hospitalizations2. Our findings indicate that around 90,000 symptomatic infections, corresponding to 9 out 10 cases, were not ascertained by the surveillance system in the first 7 weeks after lockdown from 11 May to 28 June 2020, although the test positivity rate did not exceed the 5% recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO)5. The median detection rate increased from 7% (95% confidence interval, 6-8%) to 38% (35-44%) over time, with large regional variations, owing to a strengthening of the system as well as a decrease in epidemic activity. According to participatory surveillance data, only 31% of individuals with COVID-19-like symptoms consulted a doctor in the study period. This suggests that large numbers of symptomatic cases of COVID-19 did not seek medical advice despite recommendations, as confirmed by serological studies6,7. Encouraging awareness and same-day healthcare-seeking behaviour of suspected cases of COVID-19 is critical to improve detection. However, the capacity of the system remained insufficient even at the low epidemic activity achieved after lockdown, and was predicted to deteriorate rapidly with increasing incidence of COVID-19 cases. Substantially more aggressive, targeted and efficient testing with easier access is required to act as a tool to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The testing strategy will be critical to enable partial lifting of the current restrictive measures in Europe and to avoid a third wave.

An assessment of treatment, transport, and refusal incidence in a National EMS's routine work during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 created lifestyle changes, and induced a fear of contagion affecting people's decisions regarding seeking medical assistance. Concern surrounding contagion and the pandemic has been found to affect the number and type of medical emergencies to which Emergency Medical Services (EMS) have responded. AIM: To identify, categorize, and analyze Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel's national EMS, pre-hospital activities including patients' refusal to hospital transport, during the COVID-19 pandemic crises. METHODS: A comparative before and after design study of MDA incidents during March/April 2019 and March/April 2020. Medical type, frequency, demographic, location, and transport refusal proportions and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A decrease of 2.6% in the total volume of incidents was observed during March and April 2020 compared with the equivalent period in 2019. This contrasted with the retrospective trend of annually increase observed through 2016-2019. Medical categories showing increase in 2020 were infectious disease, cardiac arrest, psychiatric, and labor and deliveries, with out-of-hospital deliveries increasing by 14%. Decreases in 2020 were seen in neurology and trauma, with trauma incidents occurring at home showing an 8.6% increase. Patients' refusal to transport rose from 13.4% in 2019 to 19.9% in 2020. Cases of refusals followed by death within 8 days were more prevalent in 2020. CONCLUSION: EMS must be prepared for changes in patients' behavior due to COVID concerns. Targeting populations at risk for refraining or refusing hospital transport and implementing diverse models of EMS, especially during pandemic times, will allow EMS to assist patients safely, either by reducing truly unnecessary ED visits minimizing contagion or by increasing hospital transports for patients in urgent or emergent conditions.

Economic and Behavioral Influencers of Vaccination and Antimicrobial Use.

Despite vast improvements in global vaccination coverage during the last decade, there is a growing trend in vaccine hesitancy and/or refusal globally. This has implications for the acceptance and coverage of a potential vaccine against COVID-19. In the United States, the number of children exempt from vaccination for "philosophical belief-based" non-medical reasons increased in 12 of the 18 states that allowed this policy from 2009 to 2017 (1). Meanwhile, the overuse and misuse of antibiotics, especially in young children, have led to increasing rates of drug resistance that threaten our ability to treat infectious diseases. Vaccine hesitancy and antibiotic overuse exist side-by-side in the same population of young children, and it is unclear why one modality (antibiotics) is universally seen as safe and effective, while the other (vaccines) is seen as potentially hazardous by some. In this review, we consider the drivers shaping the use of vaccines and antibiotics in the context of three factors: individual incentives, risk perceptions, and social norms and group dynamics. We illustrate how these factors contribute to the societal and individual costs of vaccine underuse and antimicrobial overuse. Ultimately, we seek to understand these factors that are at the nexus of infectious disease epidemiology and social science to inform policy-making.

Delay or Avoidance of Medical Care Because of COVID-19-Related Concerns - United States, June 2020.

Temporary disruptions in routine and nonemergency medical care access and delivery have been observed during periods of considerable community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). However, medical care delay or avoidance might increase morbidity and mortality risk associated with treatable and preventable health conditions and might contribute to reported excess deaths directly or indirectly related to COVID-19 (2). To assess delay or avoidance of urgent or emergency and routine medical care because of concerns about COVID-19, a web-based survey was administered by Qualtrics, LLC, during June 24-30, 2020, to a nationwide representative sample of U.S. adults aged ≥18 years. Overall, an estimated 40.9% of U.S. adults have avoided medical care during the pandemic because of concerns about COVID-19, including 12.0% who avoided urgent or emergency care and 31.5% who avoided routine care. The estimated prevalence of urgent or emergency care avoidance was significantly higher among the following groups: unpaid caregivers for adults* versus noncaregivers (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 2.9); persons with two or more selected underlying medical conditions† versus those without those conditions (aPR = 1.9); persons with health insurance versus those without health insurance (aPR = 1.8); non-Hispanic Black (Black) adults (aPR = 1.6) and Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) adults (aPR = 1.5) versus non-Hispanic White (White) adults; young adults aged 18-24 years versus adults aged 25-44 years (aPR = 1.5); and persons with disabilities§ versus those without disabilities (aPR = 1.3). Given this widespread reporting of medical care avoidance because of COVID-19 concerns, especially among persons at increased risk for severe COVID-19, urgent efforts are warranted to ensure delivery of services that, if deferred, could result in patient harm. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, persons experiencing a medical emergency should seek and be provided care without delay (3).

Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated?

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Several prophylactic vaccines against COVID-19 are currently in development, yet little is known about people's acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of adults ages 18 and older in the United States (n = 2,006) in May 2020. Multivariable relative risk regression identified correlates of participants' willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., vaccine acceptability). RESULTS: Overall, 69% of participants were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Participants were more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they thought their healthcare provider would recommend vaccination (RR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.49-2.02) or if they were moderate (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02-1.16) or liberal (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07-1.22) in their political leaning. Participants were also more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they reported higher levels of perceived likelihood getting a COVID-19 infection in the future (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.09), perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11), or perceived effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.40-1.52). Participants were less likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they were non-Latinx black (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74-0.90) or reported a higher level of perceived potential vaccine harms (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Many adults are willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, though acceptability should be monitored as vaccine development continues. Our findings can help guide future efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptability (and uptake if a vaccine becomes available).