RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Up to 15% of pregnant and postpartum women commonly experience undiagnosed and untreated mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety, which may result in serious health complications. Mobile health (mHealth) apps related to mental health have been previously used for early diagnosis and intervention but not among pregnant and postpartum women. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the acceptability of using mHealth to monitor and assess perinatal and postpartum depression and anxiety. METHODS: Focus group discussions with pregnant and postpartum women (n=20) and individual interviews with health care providers (n=8) were conducted to inform the acceptability of mHealth and determine its utility for assessing perinatal and postpartum mood symptoms. Participants were recruited via purposive sampling from obstetric clinics and the surrounding community. A semistructured interview guide was developed by an epidemiologist with qualitative research training in consultation with an obstetrician. The first author conducted all focus group discussions and provider interviews either in person or via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc) depending on the COVID-19 protocol that was in place during the study period. All interviews were audio recorded with consent; transcribed; and uploaded for coding to ATLAS.ti 8 (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development Gmb H), a qualitative data analysis and retrieval software. Data were analyzed using the deductive content analysis method using a set of a priori codes developed based on the interview guide. Methodological rigor and quality were ensured by adopting a systematic approach during the implementation, data collection, data analysis, and reporting of the data. RESULTS: Almost all women and providers had downloaded and used at least 1 health app. The respondents suggested offering short questions in layperson language that could be understood by women of all educational levels and offering no more than 2 to 3 assessments per day at preferred timings decided by the women themselves. They also suggested that the women themselves receive the alerts first, with other options being family members, spouses, or friends if the women themselves did not respond within 24 to 72 hours. Customization and snooze features were strongly endorsed by women and providers to improve acceptability and utility. Women mentioned competing demands on their time during the postpartum period, fatigue, privacy, and the security of mental health data as concerns. Health care professionals highlighted the long-term sustainability of app-based mood assessment and monitoring as an important challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study show that mHealth would be acceptable to pregnant and postpartum women for monitoring mood symptoms. This could inform the development of clinically meaningful and inexpensive tools for facilitating the continuous monitoring of, the early diagnosis of, and an early intervention for mood disorders in this vulnerable population.
RESUMEN
The likelihood of clinicians prescribing direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) and substance use disorder (SUD) was assessed via a survey emailed throughout the United States to clinicians (physicians and advanced practice providers) in gastroenterology, hepatology, and infectious disease specialties. Clinicians' perceived barriers and preparedness and actions associated with current and future DAA prescribing practices of HCV-infected patients with SUD were assessed. Of 846 clinicians presumably receiving the survey, 96 completed and returned it. Exploratory factor analyses of perceived barriers indicated a highly reliable (Cronbach alpha = 0.89) model with five factors: HCV stigma and knowledge, prior authorization requirements, and patient- clinician-, and system-related barriers. In multivariable analyses, after controlling for covariates, patient-related barriers (P < 0.01) and prior authorization requirements (P < 0.01) were negatively associated with the likelihood of prescribing DAAs. Exploratory factor analyses of clinician preparedness and actions indicated a highly reliable (Cronbach alpha = 0.75) model with three factors: beliefs and comfort level; action; and perceived limitations. Clinician beliefs and comfort levels were negatively associated with the likelihood of prescribing DAAs (P = 0.01). Composite scores of barriers (P < 0.01) and clinician preparedness and actions (P < 0.05) were also negatively associated with the intent to prescribe DAAs. Conclusion: These findings underscore the importance of addressing patient-related barriers and prior authorization requirements-significant problematic barriers-and improving clinicians' beliefs (e.g., medication-assisted therapy should be prescribed before DAAs) and comfort levels for treating patients with HCV and SUD to enhance treatment access for patients with both HCV and SUD.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It is increasingly recognized that policies have played a role in both alleviating and exacerbating the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been limited systematic evaluation of variation in U.S. local COVID-19-related policies. This study introduces the U.S. COVID-19 County Policy (UCCP) Database, whose objective is to systematically gather, characterize, and assess variation in U.S. county-level COVID-19-related policies. METHODS: In January-March 2021, we collected an initial wave of cross-sectional data from government and media websites for 171 counties in 7 states on 22 county-level COVID-19-related policies within 3 policy domains that are likely to affect health: (1) containment/closure, (2) economic support, and (3) public health. We characterized the presence and comprehensiveness of policies using univariate analyses. We also examined the correlation of policies with one another using bivariate Spearman's correlations. Finally, we examined geographical variation in policies across and within states. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in the presence and comprehensiveness of county policies during January-March 2021. For containment and closure policies, the percent of counties with no restrictions ranged from 0% (for public events) to more than half for public transportation (67.8%), hair salons (52.6%), and religious gatherings (52.0%). For economic policies, 76.6% of counties had housing support, while 64.9% had utility relief. For public health policies, most were comprehensive, with 70.8% of counties having coordinated public information campaigns, and 66.7% requiring masks outside the home at all times. Correlations between containment and closure policies tended to be positive and moderate (i.e., coefficients 0.4-0.59). There was variation within and across states in the number and comprehensiveness of policies. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces the UCCP Database, presenting granular data on local governments' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We documented substantial variation within and across states on a wide range of policies at a single point in time. By making these data publicly available, this study supports future research that can leverage this database to examine how policies contributed to and continue to influence pandemic-related health and socioeconomic outcomes and disparities. The UCCP database is available online and will include additional time points for 2020-2021 and additional counties nationwide.