Through the eyes of community health workers: what was needed to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the Missouri Southeast region.

Public health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, elucidate the strengths, weaknesses, and significant gaps in infrastructure, compatibility and consistency in communication systems, as well as the quality of collaborative relationships, and provider and workforce capacity. They also expose longstanding patterns of mistrust in the government and healthcare systems, and inadequacy in socio-economic infrastructures. These issues resulted in higher COVID-19 infection and mortality rates, and lower vaccination rates in many rural counties across the nation, including Missouri. In response to these challenges, the COVID-19 Response Network was formed in the Southeast corner of the state. The Network was a community-academic partnership that brought together community and faith-based leaders, academicians, healthcare providers and administrators, public health practitioners, and pharmacists to facilitate collaboration on education and outreach efforts aimed at reducing vaccine inequity in the 16-county project area. Importantly, the Network also included Community Health Workers (CHWs) who worked with these different agencies and organizations and were at the heart of implementing Network activities. The intent of this study was to assess their perspectives on the factors that influenced community engagement and communication strategies, and increased vaccine uptake in rural Missouri. Qualitative methods, including in-depth interviews, were used to explore the professional and personal experiences of CHWs working at the grassroots level during an ongoing pandemic. Narrative analysis revealed effective communication and engagement strategies for increasing vaccine uptake in rural communities. For instance, fear-based messaging was perceived as coercive and met with resistance. In contrast, messages that shared personal experiences and catered to the human need to protect their loved ones were more effective. Trust in the source of information was critical. This study highlights the significance of exploring and leveraging the capacities of trusted community members like CHWs to increase the effectiveness of public health interventions in rural communities.

Translating evidence into policy: opinions and insights of Health Researchers and Policymakers in Nepal.

BACKGROUND: The Evidence-Based Policymaking (EBP) process in Nepal is rife with poor practices where often policymakers are portrayed as perpetrators for such practices. However, we need to think of the EBP as a two-sided coin where both research pull and research push play equally significant roles. This study aimed to assess the perception of Nepalese health policymakers and researchers on EBP and identify appropriate mechanisms to integrate evidence into policies. METHODS: Following the constructivist philosophical paradigm, qualitative research design was used in the study with the grounded theory approach. Purposive sampling was performed, and the 12 in-depth interviews were conducted, where number of interviews was finalized using saturation theory. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, translated to English, coded line by line, and then developed into themes. Thematic analysis technique was used to manually analyze the data. RESULTS: Study participants highlighted that evidence is being utilized during policy formulation but not in the amount it should be, with a preference for anecdotal evidence further reducing the chance. Apart from these barriers, poor credibility of information obtained, poorly targeted dissemination, inadequate policy-based researches, and policymakers and researchers operating within the spheres of their own with a feeble link to channel the flow of information between them were identified by participants. On the other hand, the publication of one-pager research brief, conduction of nationally representative surveys especially quantitative studies, the practice of cost-effectiveness study, and policymaker's involvement during the research were some facilitators identified. CONCLUSIONS: Moreover, the study accentuates that better communication strategies such as the establishment of formal forums with policymakers and researchers, better-targeted dissemination, and identification of priority areas have wide potential to promote a unified front of health policymakers and researchers for EBP.