Characterizing Responses to COVID-19 Vaccine Promotion on TikTok.

PURPOSE: The Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) sponsored a TikTok contest to improve vaccination rates among young people. This analysis sought to advance understanding of COVID-19 vaccine perceptions among ADPH contestants and TikTok commenters. APPROACH: This exploratory content analysis characterized sentiment and imagery in the TikTok videos and comments. Videos were coded by two reviewers and engagement metrics were collected for each video. SETTING: Publicly available TikTok videos entered into ADPH's contest with the hashtags #getvaccinatedAL and #ADPH between July 16 - August 6, 2021. PARTICIPANTS: ADPH contestants (n = 44) and TikTok comments (n = 502). METHOD: A content analysis was conducted; videos were coded by two reviewers and engagement metrics was collected for each video (e.g., reason for vaccination, content, type of vaccination received). Video comments were analyzed using VADER, a lexicon and rule-based sentiment analysis tool). RESULTS: Of 44 videos tagged with #getvaccinatedAL and #ADPH, 37 were related to the contest. Of the 37 videos, most cited family/friends and civic duty as their reason to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Videos were shared an average of 9 times and viewed 977 times. 70% of videos had comments, ranging from 0-61 (mean 44). Words used most in positively coded comments included, "beautiful," "smiling face emoji with 3 hearts," "masks," and "good.;" whereas words used most in negatively coded comments included "baby," "me," "chips," and "cold." CONCLUSION: Understanding COVID-19 vaccine sentiment expressed on social media platforms like TikTok can be a powerful tool and resource for public health messaging.

Home urinary tract infection testing: patient experience and satisfaction with polymerase chain reaction kit.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We sought to evaluate patient satisfaction with a novel multiplex PCR UTI home collection kit for symptomatic UTI in a urogynecologic population. We secondarily sought to characterize reported uropathogens and resistance profiles of uropathogens in this population. We hypothesized that patients would be satisfied. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of women who were surveyed later about their experience undergoing evaluation for a UTI with a home UTI test at a large tertiary care urogynecology practice in 2020. Symptomatic patients were sent a home UTI kit. We assessed patient satisfaction at a later time with a 5-point Likert scale and collected baseline information. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with this experience. Secondary outcomes included type and number of uropathogens on testing. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients [73% white race, mean age 71.9 (SD 12.0) years] were surveyed. Patients responded with a mean score of 4.7/5 to all satisfaction questions. Overall, 86% (26/30) of patients would choose this test again. Of those asked if they would choose this test again outside of the COVID-19 pandemic, 86% responded affirmatively. The most common symptoms reported included dysuria (53%), urgency (37%) and frequency (30%). The most common pathogens identified included Escherichia coli (70%), Enterococcus faecalis (60%) and Aerococcus urinae (43%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients were satisfied with home UTI PCR testing and the majority would choose this option again. Home UTI PCR testing revealed common uropathogens for a population with a high proportion of recurrent UTI, but additional research comparing home versus in-office urine PCR testing is necessary.