Antecedents to COVID-19 vaccine uptake among patients and employees in the Veterans Health Administration.

The present study sought to understand the antecedents to COVID-19 vaccination among those reporting a change in vaccine intention in order to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the United States. We employed semi-structured interviews and one focus group discussion with vaccinated and unvaccinated Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employees and Veterans at three Veterans' Affairs medical centers between January and June 2021. A subset of these participants (n=21) self-reported a change in COVID-19 vaccine intention and were selected for additional analysis. We combined thematic analysis using the 5C scale (confidence, collective responsibility, complacency, calculation, constraints) as our theoretical framework with a constant comparative method from codes based on the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. We generated 13 themes distributed across the 5C constructs that appeared to be associated with a change in COVID-19 vaccine intention. Themes included a trusted family member, friend or colleague in a healthcare field, a trusted healthcare professional, distrust of government or politics (confidence); duty to family and protection of others (collective responsibility); perceived health status and normative beliefs (complacency); perceived vaccine safety, perceived risk-benefit, and orientation towards deliberation (calculation); and ease of process (constraints). Key factors in promoting vaccine uptake included a desire to protect family; and conversations with as key factors in promoting vaccine uptake. Constructs from the 5C scale are useful in understanding intrapersonal changes in vaccine intentions over time, which may help public health practitioners improve future vaccine uptake.

In this study of the Veteran and VA employee population, we aimed to understand what factors led to a decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. As part of a quality improvement project, we interviewed individuals at three Veterans' Affairs sites in the first six months of 2021. We then used a smaller sample of 21 participants who reported a change in their intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to analyze for this study. This analysis utilizes constructs from the 5C scale, which was developed to understand the conditions required for an individual to decide to receive a vaccine (confidence, collective responsibility, complacency, calculation, constraints). The coding process revealed a number of recurring themes across the interviews falling under each of the five constructs, but concepts relating to vaccine confidence (i.e., level of trust in those developing and disseminating the vaccine) were most common, and constraints (i.e., psychological and structural barriers that stand in the way of vaccination) appeared least frequently in our interviews. We found that significant motivators to receive the vaccine included a desire to protect family and conversations with trusted clinicians, particularly mental healthcare providers. Our study was unique in using the 5Cs to understand changes in vaccine changes over time. Findings show that change in vaccine attitudes is possible even in the presence of concerns and shed light on approaches that public health providers could use to improve vaccine and booster rates.

Implementation of a pharmacy-led virtual academic detailing program at the US Veterans Health Administration.

PURPOSE: To provide a summary of the implementation of a virtual academic detailing pilot program at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). SUMMARY: In September 2018, VA Pharmacy Benefits Management implemented a virtual academic detailing ("e-Detailing") pilot program across 3 regional networks. Academic detailing involves multifaceted collaborative outreach delivered by trained healthcare clinicians to other clinicians using targeted educational interventions that improve clinical decision-making. Across VA, academic detailing programs are primarily staffed by specially trained clinical pharmacist specialists. Implementation began with an in-person meeting to train academic detailers on using the virtual academic detailing platform (VA Video Connect) and virtual soft skills, which was followed by regular facilitation meetings to address issues and share experiences. During e-Detailing program implementation, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged, prompting the US Department of Health and Human Services to declare a public health emergency. VA followed with restrictions on nonessential travel for all employees, thus hampering in-person academic detailing activities. Fortunately, e-Detailing provided an alternative channel for academic detailers across VA to continue delivering critical outreach to providers during the pandemic. Qualitative assessment of academic detailers' and providers' perceptions on e-Detailing highlighted the need for local leadership support for e-Detailing and telehealth, the efficiency of virtual compared to in-person visits, and potential time savings resulting from avoidance of long commutes. CONCLUSION: The timing of e-Detailing implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the need and potential for a virtual platform to deliver timely provider outreach.

Vaccine hesitancy as an opportunity for engagement: A rapid qualitative study of patients and employees in the U.S. Veterans Affairs healthcare system.

Although COVID-19 vaccines have been available to many U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system employees and Veteran patients since early 2021, vaccine receipt data indicates some groups are not receiving them. Our objective was to conduct a rapid qualitative assessment of Veterans' and VA employees' views on COVID-19 vaccination to inform clinical leaders' ongoing efforts to increase vaccine uptake across the VA. We employed semi-structured interviews and a focus group involving employees and Veterans as part of a quality improvement project between January and June 2021 at three VA medical centers. Thirty-one employees and 27 Veterans participated in semi-structured interviews; 5 Veterans from a national stakeholder organization participated in a focus group. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis, involving an a priori coding framework comprised of four domains with subcodes under each: contextual influences, barriers and facilitators, vaccine-specific issues, and VA/military experiences. We then classified initial codes into five categories of hesitancy: vaccine deliberation, dissent, distrust, indifference and skepticism. A subset of Veterans (n = 14) and employees (n = 8) identified as vaccine hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy categories were represented by subcodes of religion, culture, gender or socio-economic factors, perceptions of politics and policies, role of healthcare providers, and historical influences; (contextual influences); knowledge or awareness of vaccines, perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, and beliefs and attitudes about health and illness (barriers and facilitators); vaccine development process (vaccine-specific issues) and military experiences (VA/military factors). Facilitators involved talking with trusted others, ease of vaccine access, and perceptions of family and societal benefits of vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy is multi-faceted and likely requires multiple strategies for engaging in conversations to address Veteran and VA employee concerns. Messages should involve patient-centered communication strategies delivered by trusted healthcare providers and peers and should focus on addressing expected benefits for family, friends, and society.

Racial and ethnic disparities in use of a personal health record by veterans living with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: To examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with use of My HealtheVet (MHV) by veterans living with HIV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Veterans Health Administration administrative data were used to identify a cohort of veterans living with HIV in fiscal years 2011-2017. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine demographic characteristics and racial/ethnic differences in MHV registration and tool use. Chi-Square tests were performed to assess associations between race/ethnicity and MHV registration and tool use. RESULTS: The highest proportion of registrants were non-Hispanic White veterans living with HIV (59%), followed by Hispanic/Latino (55%) and Black veterans living with HIV (40%). Chi-Square analyses revealed that: (1) MHV account registration was significantly lower for both Black and Hispanic/Latino veterans in comparison to White veterans and (2) Black MHV registrants were less likely to utilize any MHV tool compared with White MHV registrants including Blue Button record download, medication refills, secure messaging, lab, and appointment views. DISCUSSION: In line with prior research on personal health record (PHR) use among non-veteran populations, these findings show racial and ethnic inequities in MHV use among veterans living with HIV. Racial and ethnic minorities may be less likely to use PHRs for a myriad of reasons, including PHR privacy concerns, decreased educational attainment, and limited access to the internet. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine racial and ethnic disparities in use of MHV tools by veterans living with HIV and utilizing Veterans Health Administration health care. Future research should examine potential moderating factors linked to decreased PHR use among racial and ethnic minority veterans, which could inform strategies to increase PHR use among vulnerable populations.

Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: It is challenging to conduct and quickly disseminate findings from in-depth qualitative analyses, which can impede timely implementation of interventions because of its time-consuming methods. To better understand tradeoffs between the need for actionable results and scientific rigor, we present our method for conducting a framework-guided rapid analysis (RA) and a comparison of these findings to an in-depth analysis of interview transcripts. METHODS: Set within the context of an evaluation of a successful academic detailing (AD) program for opioid prescribing in the Veterans Health Administration, we developed interview guides informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and interviewed 10 academic detailers (clinical pharmacists) and 20 primary care providers to elicit detail about successful features of the program. For the RA, verbatim transcripts were summarized using a structured template (based on CFIR); summaries were subsequently consolidated into matrices by participant type to identify aspects of the program that worked well and ways to facilitate implementation elsewhere. For comparison purposes, we later conducted an in-depth analysis of the transcripts. We described our RA approach and qualitatively compared the RA and deductive in-depth analysis with respect to consistency of themes and resource intensity. RESULTS: Integrating the CFIR throughout the RA and in-depth analysis was helpful for providing structure and consistency across both analyses. Findings from the two analyses were consistent. The most frequently coded constructs from the in-depth analysis aligned well with themes from the RA, and the latter methods were sufficient and appropriate for addressing the primary evaluation goals. Our approach to RA was less resource-intensive than the in-depth analysis, allowing for timely dissemination of findings to our operations partner that could be integrated into ongoing implementation. CONCLUSIONS: In-depth analyses can be resource-intensive. If consistent with project needs (e.g., to quickly produce information to inform ongoing implementation or to comply with a policy mandate), it is reasonable to consider using RA, especially when faced with resource constraints. Our RA provided valid findings in a short timeframe, enabling identification of actionable suggestions for our operations partner.

Testing implementation facilitation of a primary care-based collaborative care clinical program using a hybrid type III interrupted time series design: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination of evidence-based practices that can reduce morbidity and mortality is important to combat the growing opioid overdose crisis in the USA. Research and expert consensus support reducing high-dose opioid therapy, avoiding risky opioid-benzodiazepine combination therapy, and promoting multi-modal, collaborative models of pain care. Collaborative care interventions that support primary care providers have been effective in medication tapering. We developed a patient-centered Primary Care-Integrated Pain Support (PIPS) collaborative care clinical program based on effective components of previous collaborative care interventions. Implementation facilitation, a multi-faceted and dynamic strategy involving the provision of interactive problem-solving and support during implementation of a new program, is used to support key organizational staff throughout PIPS implementation. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation facilitation strategy for implementing and sustaining PIPS in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The secondary aim is to examine the effect of the program on key patient-level clinical outcomes-transitioning to safer regimens and enhancing access to complementary and integrative health treatments. The tertiary aim is to determine the categorical costs and ultimate budget impact of PIPS implementation. METHODS: This multi-site study employs an interrupted time series, hybrid type III design to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation facilitation for a collaborative care clinical program-PIPS-in primary care clinics in three geographically diverse VHA health care systems (sites). Participants include pharmacists and allied staff involved in the delivery of clinical pain management services as well as patients. Eligible patients are prescribed either an outpatient opioid prescription greater than or equal to 90 mg morphine equivalent daily dose or a combination opioid-benzodiazepine regimen. They must also have an upcoming appointment in primary care. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will guide the mixed methods work across the formative evaluation phases and informs the selection of activities included in implementation facilitation. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of PIPS. DISCUSSION: This implementation study will provide important insight into the effectiveness of implementation facilitation to enhance uptake of a collaborative care program in primary care, which targets unsafe opioid prescribing practices.

Academic Detailing to Improve Opioid Safety: Implementation Lessons from a Qualitative Evaluation.

Objective: Academic detailing (AD) is a promising intervention to address the growing morbidity and mortality associated with opioids. While AD has been shown to be effective in improving provider prescribing practices across a range of conditions, it is unclear how best to implement AD. The present study was designed to identify key lessons for implementation based on a model AD program in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Design: Qualitative process evaluation using semistructured interviews. Setting: Seven VA health care systems in the Sierra Pacific region. Subjects: Current and former academic detailers (N = 10) and VA providers with varying exposure to AD (high, low, or no; N = 20). Methods: Semistructured interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We used a team-based, mixed inductive and deductive approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Key lessons identified by academic detailers and providers coalesced around key themes: 1) one-on-one sessions customized to the provider's patient population are most useful; 2) leadership plays a critical role in supporting providers' participation in AD programs; 3) tracking academic detailer and provider performance is important for improving performance for both groups; 4) academic detailers play a key role in motivating provider behavior change and thus training in Motivational Interviewing is highly valuable; and 5) academic detailers noted that networking is important for sharing implementation strategies and resources. Conclusions: Identifying and incorporating these key lessons into the implementation of complex interventions like AD are critical to facilitating uptake of evidence-based interventions addressing the opioid epidemic.

Novelty helmet use and motorcycle rider fatality.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of fatal injury across helmet types among collision-involved motorcyclists. METHODS: We used data from a cohort of motorcyclists involved in police-reported traffic collisions. Eighty-four law enforcement agencies in California collected detailed information on helmet and rider characteristics during collision investigations in June 2012 through July 2013. Multiply-adjusted risk ratios were estimated with log-binomial regression. RESULTS: The adjusted fatal injury risk ratio for novelty helmets was 1.95 (95% CI 1.11-3.40, p 0.019), comparing novelty helmets with full-face helmets. The risk ratios for modular, open-face, and half-helmets, compared with full-face helmets, were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: A more complete understanding of the inadequacy of novelty helmets can be used in educational and law enforcement countermeasures to improve helmet use among motorcycling populations in California and other US states. Law enforcement approaches to mitigating novelty helmet use would seem attractive given that novelty helmets can be visually identified by law enforcement officers with sufficient training.

Motorcycle helmet use and the risk of head, neck, and fatal injury: Revisiting the Hurt Study.

Most studies find strong evidence that motorcycle helmets protect against injury, but a small number of controversial studies have reported a positive association between helmet use and neck injury. The most commonly cited paper is that of Goldstein (1986). Goldstein obtained and reanalyzed data from the Hurt Study, a prospective, on-scene investigation of 900 motorcycle collisions in the city of Los Angeles. The Goldstein results have been adopted by the anti-helmet community to justify resistance to compulsory motorcycle helmet use on the grounds that helmets may cause neck injuries due to their mass. In the current study, we replicated Goldstein's models to understand how he obtained his unexpected results, and we then applied modern statistical methods to estimate the association of motorcycle helmet use with head injury, fatal injury, and neck injury among collision-involved motorcyclists. We found Goldstein's analysis to be critically flawed due to improper data imputation, modeling of extremely sparse data, and misinterpretation of model coefficients. Our new analysis showed that motorcycle helmets were associated with markedly lower risk of head injury (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31-0.52) and fatal injury (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.74) and with moderately lower but statistically significant risk of neck injury (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.99), after controlling for multiple potential confounders.

Motorcycle helmet type and the risk of head injury and neck injury during motorcycle collisions in California.

The use of novelty motorcycle helmets is often prompted by beliefs that wearing a standard helmet can contribute to neck injury during traffic collisions. The goal of this analysis was to examine the association between helmet type and neck injury risk and the association between helmet type and head injury. Data were collected during the investigation of motorcycle collisions of any injury severity by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and 83 local law enforcement agencies in California between June 2012 and July 2013. We estimated head injury and neck injury risk ratios from data on 7051 collision-involved motorcyclists using log-binomial regression. Helmet type was strongly associated with head injury occurrence but was not associated with the occurrence of neck injury. Rider age, rider alcohol use, and motorcycle speed were strong, positive predictors of both head and neck injury. Interventions to improve motorcycle helmet choice and to counteract misplaced concerns surrounding neck injury risk are likely to lead to reductions in head injury, brain injury, and death.