The CONFIDENT study protocol: a randomized controlled trial comparing two methods to increase long-term care worker confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and real-world effectiveness data for the COVID-19 vaccines have shown that they are the best defense in preventing severe illness and death throughout the pandemic. However, in the US, some groups remain more hesitant than others about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One important group is long-term care workers (LTCWs), especially because they risk infecting the vulnerable and clinically complex populations they serve. There is a lack of research about how best to increase vaccine confidence, especially in frontline LTCWs and healthcare staff. Our aims are to: (1) compare the impact of two interventions delivered online to enhanced usual practice on LTCW COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other pre-specified secondary outcomes, (2) determine if LTCWs' characteristics and other factors mediate and moderate the interventions' effect on study outcomes, and (3) explore the implementation characteristics, contexts, and processes needed to sustain a wider use of the interventions. METHODS: We will conduct a three-arm randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 2) trial, with randomization at the participant level. Arm 1 is a dialogue-based webinar intervention facilitated by a LTCW and a medical expert and guided by an evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine decision tool. Arm 2 is a curated social media web application intervention featuring interactive, dynamic content about COVID-19 and relevant vaccines. Arm 3 is enhanced usual practice, which directs participants to online public health information about COVID-19 vaccines. Participants will be recruited via online posts and advertisements, email invitations, and in-person visits to care settings. Trial data will be collected at four time points using online surveys. The primary outcome is COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Secondary outcomes include vaccine uptake, vaccine and booster intent for those unvaccinated, likelihood of recommending vaccination (both initial series and booster), feeling informed about the vaccines, identification of vaccine information and misinformation, and trust in COVID-19 vaccine information provided by different people and organizations. Exploration of intervention implementation will involve interviews with study participants and other stakeholders, an in-depth process evaluation, and testing during a subsequent sustainability phase. DISCUSSION: Study findings will contribute new knowledge about how to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and effective informational modalities for LTCWs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05168800 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered December 23, 2021.

Co-Development of a Web Application (COVID-19 Social Site) for Long-Term Care Workers ("Something for Us"): User-Centered Design and Participatory Research Study.

BACKGROUND: Improving confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters among long-term care workers (LTCWs) is a crucial public health goal, given their role in the care of elderly people and people at risk. While difficult to reach with workplace communication interventions, most LTCWs regularly use social media and smartphones. Various social media interventions have improved attitudes and uptake for other vaccines and hold promise for the LTCW population. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a curated social web application (interactive website) to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence (a 3-arm randomized trial is underway). METHODS: Following user-centric design and participatory research approaches, we undertook the following 3 steps: (1) content identification, (2) platform development, and (3) community building. A LTCW and stakeholder advisory group provided iterative input. For content identification (step 1), we identified topics of concern about COVID-19 vaccines via desktop research (published literature, public opinion polls, and social media monitoring), refined by interviewing and polling LTCWs. We also conducted a national online panel survey. We curated and fact-checked posts from popular social media platforms that addressed the identified concerns. During platform development (step 2), we solicited preferences for design and functionality via interviews and user experience testing with LTCWs. We also identified best practices for online community building (step 3). RESULTS: In the interviews (n=9), we identified 3 themes: (1) LTCWs are proud of their work but feel undervalued; (2) LTCWs have varying levels of trust in COVID-19-related information; and (3) LTCWs would welcome a curated COVID-19 resource that is easy to understand and use-"something for us". Through desktop research, LTCW interviews, and our national online panel survey (n=592) we found that participants are interested in information about COVID-19 in general, vaccine benefits, vaccine risks, and vaccine development. Content identification resulted in 434 posts addressing these topic areas, with 209 uploaded to the final web application. Our LTCW poll (n=8) revealed preferences for personal stories and video content. The platform we developed is an accessible WordPress-based social media web application, refined through formal (n=3) and informal user experience testing. Users can sort posts by topic or subtopic and react to or comment on posts. To build an online community, we recruited 3 LTCW "community ambassadors" and instructed them to encourage discussion, acknowledge concerns, and offer factual information on COVID-19 vaccines. We also set "community standards" for the web application. CONCLUSIONS: An iterative, user-centric, participatory approach led to the launch of an accessible social media web application with curated content for COVID-19 vaccines targeting LTCWs in the United States. Through our trial, we will determine if this approach successfully improves vaccine confidence. If so, a similar social media resource could be used to develop curated social media interventions in other populations and with other public health goals.

Spreading a Strategy to Prevent Suicide After Psychiatric Hospitalization: Results of a Quality Improvement Spread Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Suicide after psychiatric hospitalization is a major concern. Poor treatment engagement may contribute to risk. The World Health Organization Brief Intervention and Contact (BIC) Program is an evidence-based practice shown to prevent suicide after psychiatric discharge in international trials. There have been no efforts to implement BIC into routine practice in US populations. METHODS: The authors conducted a 12-month quality improvement (QI) collaborative at six US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers serving a large rural population. Sites had low to moderate performance on a VA quality measure of mental health postdischarge care; a measure assessing the proportion of discharged patients who achieve the required number of visits ≤ 30 days. Sites received programmatic support to implement BIC locally. Implementation was assessed using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. RESULTS: Overall, teams had high participation in programmatic activities and enrolled 85% of eligible patients that they approached. Among 70 enrolled patients, 81.4% achieved the VA quality measure of mental health postdischarge care, suggesting good treatment engagement. On average, patients rated BIC as excellent. Team members agreed that BIC was easy to use, implementable, possible, and doable. Factors facilitating implementation included standardized operating procedures to standardize processes. Barriers included insufficient staffing and loss to follow-up. Most sites plan to continue to enroll patients and to expand BIC to other areas. CONCLUSION: A QI collaborative can facilitate implementation of BIC in six VA facilities that provide inpatient psychiatric treatment. BIC may appeal to patients and providers and may improve treatment engagement.

Growth of IPS Supported Employment Programs in the United States: An Update.

OBJECTIVE: Individual placement and support (IPS), an evidence-based supported employment practice, is a core service in community mental health in the United States. Several factors promote the growth of IPS, including a network of 24 states participating in a learning community devoted to expanding IPS services. This study examined growth of IPS in the United States from 2016 to 2019, comparing growth rates for states within and outside the learning community. METHODS: This national survey included telephone interviews with 70 representatives from state mental health and vocational rehabilitation agencies in 50 states and the District of Columbia, replicating methods of a 2016 survey. The primary outcomes were the number of IPS programs and clients served. The survey inquired about four indicators of state-level support for IPS implementation and sustainment: collaboration between state agencies, independent fidelity reviews, technical assistance and training, and funding. RESULTS: In 2019, 41 (80%) of 50 states and the District of Columbia had IPS services, with 857 IPS programs serving an estimated 43,209 clients. Between 2016 and 2019, the number of programs increased from 272 to 486 in 22 learning-community states and two learning-community counties, and from 251 to 371 in 18 states outside the learning community. State-level support for IPS was significantly greater in learning-community states, compared with non-learning-community states. CONCLUSIONS: IPS services expanded substantially in the United States between 2016 and 2019. Learning-community states had more rapid growth and provided greater implementation support, facilitating implementation, expansion, and sustainment of high-fidelity IPS. Nevertheless, access to IPS remains limited.

A Tale of Four States: Factors Influencing the Statewide Adoption of IPS.

Evidence-based supported employment has become a core community mental health service in much of the U.S. Although a national learning community has facilitated progress in about half of the states, other states have tried to implement evidence-based supported employment on their own. Many studies have examined site-level factors influencing implementation of supported employment, but few have focused on the role of state agency policies and actions. This study examined four states that have not joined the learning community, comparing two that have implemented with success (adopting states) and two that have faced challenges (non-adopting states). This comparative case study approach compared barriers, facilitators, and strategies in two states adopting IPS to two states that did not. The authors examined quantitative data from public records and conducted content analysis of qualitative and quantitative data from key informant interviews. The two non-adopting states lacked model clarity, funding, focus on people with serious mental illness, and collaboration between state mental health and vocational rehabilitation agencies. The two successful states experienced similar barriers but overcame them following lawsuit settlements that required implementation of evidence-based supported employment. Key strategies for successful implementation were funding, fidelity monitoring, technical assistance, and collaboration between state mental health and vocational rehabilitation agencies. With legal settlements serving as the catalyst, states facing challenges to implementing evidence-based supported employment can achieve success using standard implementation strategies to fund and ensure the quality of services.

Expanding Individual Placement and Support to Populations With Conditions and Disorders Other Than Serious Mental Illness.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of studies of individual placement and support (IPS) for populations other than those with serious mental illness was conducted. METHODS: The authors searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) for studies of IPS and modified IPS. Eligibility criteria for the systematic review included randomized controlled trials with prospective data collection on competitive employment rate and at least 10 study participants from a well-defined population other than people with serious mental illness. Results were compiled for competitive employment rates, IPS fidelity, and other outcomes. RESULTS: Three clinical groups other than people with serious mental illness have been studied: people with psychiatric disorders other than serious mental illness, people with substance use disorders, and people with musculoskeletal or neurological disorders. Nine controlled trials with a total of 2,902 participants included six trials with people who had psychiatric disorders other than serious mental illness, two with people who had substance use disorders, and one with people who had spinal cord injuries. In eight studies, results for competitive employment rates significantly favored IPS. Meta-analysis yielded an overall weighted odds ratio of 2.23 (95% confidence interval=1.53-3.24, p<.001). Findings for other employment outcomes also favored IPS, but findings on symptom reduction and quality of life were inconsistent. The strongest (and only replicated) findings were for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Methodological limitations included small samples, major modifications to IPS fidelity, and short follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: IPS, often with modifications, is a promising employment intervention for several populations in addition to people with serious mental illnesses. The strongest evidence pertains to veterans with PTSD. IPS should be offered to these veterans. Research on other populations, including people with anxiety, depression, substance use disorder, musculoskeletal or neurological conditions, or pain syndromes, needs development, amplification, and replication.