Factors impacting COVID-19 vaccine decision making in older adults and people with underlying conditions in Victoria, Australia: A cross-sectional survey.

Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout included prioritizing older adults and those with underlying conditions. However, little was known around the factors impacting their decision to accept the vaccine. This study aimed to assess vaccine intentions, information needs, and preferences of people prioritized to receive the COVID-19 vaccine at the start of the Australian vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional online survey of people aged ≥70 years or 18-69 with chronic or underlying conditions was conducted between 12 February and 26 March 2021 in Victoria, Australia. The World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers of COVID-19 vaccination framework and items informed the survey design and framing of results. Bivariate logistic regression was used to investigate the association between intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine and demographic characteristics. In total, 1828 eligible people completed the survey. Intention to vaccinate was highest among those ≥70 years (89.6%, n = 824/920) versus those aged 18-69 years (83.8%, n = 761/908), with 91% (n = 1641/1803) of respondents agreeing that getting a COVID-19 vaccine was important to their health. Reported vaccine safety (aOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8) and efficacy (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.3) were associated with intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Concerns around serious illness, long-term effects, and insufficient vaccine testing were factors for not accepting a COVID-19 vaccine. Preferred communication methods included discussion with healthcare providers, with primary care providers identified as the most trusted information source. This study identified factors influencing the prioritized public's COVID-19 vaccine decision-making, including information preferences. These details can support future vaccination rollouts.

Effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress on clinical outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effect of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) routinely to assess and address depressive symptoms and diabetes distress among adults with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: A systematic review of published peer-reviewed studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies including adults with type 2 diabetes, published in English, from the inception of the databases to 24 February 2022 inclusive; and where the intervention included completion of a PROM of depressive symptoms and/or diabetes distress, with feedback of the responses to a healthcare professional. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Using Covidence software, screening and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently with any disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. RESULTS: The search identified 4512 citations, of which 163 full-text citations were assessed for eligibility, and nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies involved assessment of depressive symptoms only, two studies assessed diabetes distress only, and two studies assessed both. All studies had an associated cointervention. When depressive symptoms were assessed (n=7), a statistically significant between-group difference in depressive symptoms was observed in five studies; with a clinically significant (>0.5%) between-group difference in HbA1c in two studies. When diabetes distress was assessed (n=4), one study demonstrated statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms and diabetes distress; with a clinically significant between-group difference in HbA1c observed in two studies. CONCLUSION: Studies are sparse in which PROMs are used to assess and address depressive symptoms or diabetes distress during routine clinical care of adults with type 2 diabetes. Further research is warranted to understand how to integrate PROMs into clinical care efficiently and determine appropriate interventions to manage identified problem areas. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020200246.

Changes in primary care visits arising from the COVID-19 pandemic: an international comparative study by the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

INTRODUCTION: Through the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID), we compared the pandemic impact on the volume of primary care visits and uptake of virtual care in Australia, Canada, China, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, the UK and the USA. METHODS: Visit definitions were agreed on centrally, implemented locally across the various settings in INTRePID countries, and weekly visit counts were shared centrally for analysis. We evaluated the weekly rate of primary care physician visits during 2019 and 2020. Rate ratios (RRs) of total weekly visit volume and the proportion of weekly visits that were virtual in the pandemic period in 2020 compared with the same prepandemic period in 2019 were calculated. RESULTS: In 2019 and 2020, there were 80 889 386 primary care physician visits across INTRePID. During the pandemic, average weekly visit volume dropped in China, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA but was stable overall in Australia (RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.05, p=0.59)), Canada (RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.03, p=0.24)), Norway (RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.17, p=0.85)), Sweden (RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.06, p=0.22)) and the UK (RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.03, p=0.11)). In countries that had negligible virtual care prepandemic, the proportion of visits that were virtual were highest in Canada (77.0%) and Australia (41.8%). In Norway (RR 8.23 (95% CI 5.30 to 12.78, p<0.001), the UK (RR 2.36 (95% CI 2.24 to 2.50, p<0.001)) and Sweden (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.50, p<0.001)) where virtual visits existed prepandemic, it increased significantly during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The drop in primary care in-person visits during the pandemic was a global phenomenon across INTRePID countries. In several countries, primary care shifted to virtual visits mitigating the drop in in-person visits.

Process mining-driven analysis of COVID-19's impact on vaccination patterns.

Process mining is a discipline sitting between data mining and process science, whose goal is to provide theoretical methods and software tools to analyse process execution data, known as event logs. Although process mining was originally conceived to facilitate business process management activities, research studies have shown the benefit of leveraging process mining in healthcare contexts. However, applying process mining tools to analyse healthcare process execution data is not straightforward. In this paper, we show a methodology to: i) prepare general practice healthcare process data for conducting a process mining analysis; ii) select and apply suitable process mining solutions for successfully executing the analysis; and iii) extract valuable insights from the obtained results, alongside leads for traditional data mining analysis. By doing so, we identified two major challenges when using process mining solutions for analysing healthcare process data, and highlighted benefits and limitations of the state-of-the-art process mining techniques when dealing with highly variable processes and large data-sets. While we provide solutions to the identified challenges, the overarching goal of this study was to detect differences between the patients' health services utilization pattern observed in 2020-during the COVID-19 pandemic and mandatory lock-downs -and the one observed in the prior four years, 2016 to 2019. By using a combination of process mining techniques and traditional data mining, we were able to demonstrate that vaccinations in Victoria did not drop drastically-as other interactions did. On the contrary, we observed a surge of influenza and pneumococcus vaccinations in 2020, as opposed to other research findings of similar studies conducted in different geographical areas.

Costing of an Australian general practice COVID-19 drive-through testing and respiratory clinic.

BACKGROUND: Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic requires safe and efficient testing on a large scale over a prolonged period. Outpatient testing facilities can clinically assess and test symptomatic individuals and test asymptomatic contacts. This study identified the resources required to establish and maintain an Australian general practitioner (GP) led testing facility that combined a respiratory clinic for clinical assessment and testing with a drive-through testing facility. METHODS: Data were taken from clinic administrative records to identify the number of patients tested over the period April-June 2020. An independent auditor's report identified the resources used in establishing, running, and staffing both clinics for the same period. Analyses were performed using the minimum and maximum daily throughput to understand the effect of demand on price per sample collected. RESULTS: The respiratory clinic tested an average of 19 patients per day, at an estimated cost of $340.04 AUD. This varied to $687.99 AUD during the lowest demand scenario, and $281.04 AUD during the high demand scenario. The drive-through clinic tested an average of 47 patients per day, at an estimated cost of $153.57 AUD. This varied to $279.51 AUD during the lowest demand scenario, and $99.92 AUD during the high demand scenario. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the cost of testing at a drive through and respiratory clinic in Australia. The evidence highlights importance of considering variation in demand and the impact on efficiency, particularly where resource use is fixed in the short term.

Primary care consumers’ experiences and opinions of a telehealth consultation delivered via video during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study examined consumers' experiences and opinions of a videoconference with a primary healthcare professional, and estimated the value of travel and time savings for consumers compared with face-to-face consultations. The online survey was conducted in Melbourne, Australia, between October 2020 and May 2021. The sample (n = 499) was highly educated (Bachelor degree or higher, 79%; 393/499), predominately female (70%; 347/499), mainly spoke English at home (78%; 390/499) and had a mean age of 31.8 years (s.d. 11.40). Reduced travel time (27%; 271/499) and avoiding exposure to COVID-19 (23%; 228/499) were the main reasons consumers chose a videoconference. Mental health and behavioural issues were the main reason for the consultation (38%; 241/499) and 69% (346/499) of consultations were with a general practitioner. Perceptions of the quality of care were uniformly high, with 84% (419/499) of respondents believing videoconference was equivalent to a face-to-face consultation. No association was found between reporting that telehealth was equivalent to a face-to-face consultation and education, language, health status, reason for consultation or provider type. The average time saved per consultation was 1 h and 39 min, and the average transport-related saving was A$14.29. High rates of acceptance and substantial cost savings observed in this study warrant further investigation to inform the longer-term role of videoconferences, and telehealth more broadly, in the Australian primary care system.

Factors Influencing Australian Healthcare Workers' COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions across Settings: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Healthcare workers' COVID-19 vaccination coverage is important for staff and patient safety, workforce capacity and patient uptake. We aimed to identify COVID-19 vaccine intentions, factors associated with uptake and information needs for healthcare workers in Victoria, Australia. We administered a cross-sectional online survey to healthcare workers in hospitals, primary care and aged or disability care settings (12 February-26 March 2021). The World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers of COVID-19 vaccination framework informed survey design and framing of results. Binary regression results adjusted for demographics provide risk differences between those intending and not intending to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. In total, 3074 healthcare workers completed the survey. Primary care healthcare workers reported the highest intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (84%, 755/898), followed by hospital-based (77%, 1396/1811) and aged care workers (67%, 243/365). A higher proportion of aged care workers were concerned about passing COVID-19 to their patients compared to those working in primary care or hospitals. Only 25% felt they had sufficient information across five vaccine topics, but those with sufficient information had higher vaccine intentions. Approximately half thought vaccines should be mandated. Despite current high vaccine rates, our results remain relevant for booster programs and future vaccination rollouts.

Qualitative exploration of intentions, concerns and information needs of vaccine-hesitant adults initially prioritised to receive COVID-19 vaccines in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Tailored communication is necessary to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and increase uptake. We aimed to understand the information needs, perceived benefits and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination of people prioritised, but hesitant to receive the vaccine. METHOD: In this qualitative study in Victoria, Australia (February-May 2021), we purposively sampled hesitant adults who were health or aged/disability care workers (n=20), or adults aged 18-69 with comorbidities or aged ≥70 years ('prioritised adults'; n=19). We thematically analysed interviews inductively, then deductively organised themes within the World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers of vaccination model. Two stakeholder workshops (n=12) explored understanding and preferences for communicating risks and benefits. We subsequently formed communication recommendations. RESULTS: Prioritised adults and health and aged care workers had short- and long-term safety concerns specific to personal circumstances, and felt like "guinea pigs". They saw vaccination as beneficial for individual and community protection and travel. Some health and aged care workers felt insufficiently informed to recommend vaccines, or viewed this as outside their scope of practice. Workshop participants requested interactive materials and transparency from spokespeople about uncertainty. Conclusions and public health implications: Eleven recommendations address communication content, delivery and context to increase uptake and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.

Strengthening respiratory protection from SARS-CoV-2 in certain general practice contexts.

We recommend a precautionary approach to respiratory protection for healthcare workers potentially exposed to SARS-CoV-2 until the efficacy of surgical masks can be proven.

Effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes is a global health priority. People with diabetes are more likely to experience mental health problems relative to people without diabetes. Diabetes guidelines recommend assessment of depression and diabetes distress during diabetes care. This systematic review will examine the effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycInfo, The Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched using a prespecified strategy using a prespecified Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Setting and study design strategy. The date range of the search of all databases will be from inception to 3 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time-series studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and analytical cross-sectional studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the English language will be included. Two review authors will independently screen abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer, if required, using Covidence software. Two reviewers will undertake risk of bias assessment using checklists appropriate to study design. Data will be extracted using prespecified template. A narrative synthesis will be conducted, with a meta-analysis, if appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this review of published studies. Presentation of results will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020200246.

Preparing the public for COVID-19 vaccines

[...]as has been shown in previous mass vaccination programs, planning for vaccine program rollout and community engagement to optimise vaccine confidence and uptake in Australia needs to commence beforehand, not when the vaccines become available.5 Consistent with its existing role in vaccination programs, primary care professional are anticipated to play a key part in educating patients and carers about the vaccine, administering the vaccine, recording uptake and reporting adverse events following immunisation. There are currently 17 vaccines in phase I trials and 10 vaccines in phase II/III clinical trials (28 August 2020).6 Traditional vaccine development is a lengthy process, usually taking 10-15 years or more, with a distinct, linear sequence of steps and high attrition rate.7 The usual steps include pre-clinical development, safety testing (phase I), safety and immunogenicity testing (phase II) and then safety and efficacy testing (phase III), prior to licensure, production at scale and introduction into the population (Figure 1). Comprehensive post-marketing surveillance to track vaccine safety for these expected adverse events, as well as to detect postulated rarer adverse events such as antibody-enhanced disease, will also be essential to maintain vaccine confidence and achieve high vaccine acceptance and uptake. The WHO10 and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practice (ACIP)11 are currently advising a risk- and aged-based approach for prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccine target groups.