Global Trends and Correlates of COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy: Findings from the iCARE Study.

The success of large-scale COVID-19 vaccination campaigns is contingent upon people being willing to receive the vaccine. Our study explored COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its correlates in eight different countries around the globe. We analyzed convenience sample data collected between March 2020 and January 2021 as part of the iCARE cross-sectional study. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to explore the correlates of vaccine hesitancy. We included 32,028 participants from eight countries, and observed that 27% of the participants exhibited vaccine hesitancy, with increases over time. France reported the highest level of hesitancy (47.3%) and Brazil reported the lowest (9.6%). Women, younger individuals (≤29 years), people living in rural areas, and those with a lower perceived income were more likely to be hesitant. People who previously received an influenza vaccine were 70% less likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We observed that people reporting greater COVID-19 health concerns were less likely to be hesitant, whereas people with higher personal financial concerns were more likely to be hesitant. Our findings indicate that there is substantial vaccine hesitancy in several countries, with cross-national differences in the magnitude and direction of the trend. Vaccination communication initiatives should target hesitant individuals (women, younger adults, people with lower incomes and those living in rural areas), and should highlight the immediate health, social and economic benefits of vaccination across these settings. Country-level analyses are warranted to understand the complex psychological, socio-environmental, and cultural factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.

Mediators of Racial Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake: A Cohort Study in Detroit, MI.

Despite their disparate rates of infection and mortality, many communities of color report high levels of vaccine hesitancy. This paper describes racial differences in COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Detroit, and assesses, using a mediation model, how individuals' personal experiences with COVID-19 and trust in authorities mediate racial disparities in vaccination acceptance. The Detroit Metro Area Communities Study (DMACS) is a panel survey of a representative sample of Detroit residents. There were 1012 respondents in the October 2020 wave, of which 856 (83%) were followed up in June 2021. We model the impact of race and ethnicity on vaccination uptake using multivariable logistic regression, and report mediation through direct experiences with COVID as well as trust in government and in healthcare providers. Within Detroit, only 58% of Non-Hispanic (NH) Black residents were vaccinated, compared to 82% of Non-Hispanic white Detroiters, 50% of Hispanic Detroiters, and 52% of other racial/ethnic groups. Trust in healthcare providers and experiences with friends and family dying from COVID-19 varied significantly by race/ethnicity. The mediation analysis reveals that 23% of the differences in vaccine uptake by race could be eliminated if NH Black Detroiters were to have levels of trust in healthcare providers similar to those among NH white Detroiters. Our analyses suggest that efforts to improve relationships among healthcare providers and NH Black communities in Detroit are critical to overcoming local COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Increased study of and intervention in these communities is critical to building trust and managing widespread health crises.

Group mentoring and leadership growth in behavioral medicine.

Since its inception in 2016, the establishment of learning communities led by senior Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) members has been central to the SBM's Mid-Career Leadership Institute (Institute). At the beginning of an initial two-day intensive workshop, groups of approximately six fellows are placed together, and one or two senior SBM members are asked to lead group mentoring. Senior SBM members serve as mentors during quarterly calls that are conducted over the year in order for group members to develop and present an individual leadership project at the following annual meeting. Group mentoring relies on the social dynamic that emerges from the group's own social norms and roles; it is designed to advance the careers of group members. To our knowledge, this is the first commentary describing a program of formal group mentoring for mid-career leadership development in a professional association. Based on the authors' experience as mentors, thematic and descriptive analyses of the initial workshop evaluations, and contemporaneous notes, we discuss the structure, process, and project outcomes of the formal group mentoring in SBM's Institute. Early process evaluation of the Institute suggests that the Fellows benefitted from the group mentoring experience.

Behavioral and mental health risk factor profiles among diverse primary care patients.

Behavioral and mental health risk factors are prevalent among primary care patients and contribute substantially to premature morbidity and mortality and increased health care utilization and costs. Although prior studies have found most adults screen positive for multiple risk factors, limited research has attempted to identify factors that most commonly co-occur, which may guide future interventions. The purpose of this study was to identify subgroups of primary care patients with co-occurring risk factors and to examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with these subgroups. We assessed 12 behavioral health risk factors in a sample of adults (n=1628) receiving care from nine primary care practices across six U.S. states in 2013. Using latent class analysis, we identified four distinct patient subgroups: a 'Mental Health Risk' class (prevalence=14%; low physical activity, high stress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and sleepiness), a 'Substance Use Risk' class (29%; highest tobacco, drug, alcohol use), a 'Dietary Risk' class (29%; high BMI, poor diet), and a 'Lower Risk' class (27%). Compared to the Lower Risk class, patients in the Mental Health Risk class were younger and less likely to be Latino/Hispanic, married, college educated, or employed. Patients in the Substance Use class tended to be younger, male, African American, unmarried, and less educated. African Americans were over 7 times more likely to be in the Dietary Risk versus Lower Risk class (OR 7.7, 95% CI 4.0-14.8). Given the heavy burden of behavioral health issues in primary care, efficiently addressing co-occurring risk factors in this setting is critical.

Tailored communications for obesity prevention in pediatric primary care: a feasibility study.

Recommendations for the prevention of childhood obesity encourage providers to counsel parents and their children on healthy diet and activity behaviors. This study evaluated the feasibility of a theory-based, tailored communication intervention for obesity prevention (Team Up for Health) delivered during a well-child visit. A two-armed randomized controlled trial was used. Parents of children aged 4-10 years were recruited from a list of patients due for a well-child visit at a pediatric primary care clinic. Parents were randomized to either the 'immediate' condition (parent and pediatrician received the tailored report at the well-child visit) or the 'delayed' condition (parent received the report at the end of the study). Self-report measures assessed physical activity, fruits, vegetables, television time, sugary drinks, and 100% fruit juice. Parents completed assessments at baseline, <48 h and 4-week follow-up. Providers were interviewed at the end of the study. Independent t-tests were used to examine between group differences. Seven areas of feasibility were evaluated: Recruitment, randomization, measurement, retention, acceptability, implementation and demand. Results showed high rates of measurement (85%) and acceptability (89%) and implementation (80%) of the intervention. In conclusion, Team Up for Health was feasible; however, a larger study is needed to evaluate its efficacy.

Increasing the public health impact of evidence-based interventions in behavioral medicine: new approaches and future directions.

The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based behavioral medicine interventions into real world practice has been limited. The purpose of this paper is to discuss specific limitations of current behavioral medicine research within the context of the RE-AIM framework, and potential opportunities to increase public health impact by applying novel intervention designs and data collection approaches. The MOST framework has recently emerged as an alternative approach to development and evaluation that aims to optimize multicomponent behavioral and bio-behavioral interventions. SMART designs, imbedded within the MOST framework, are an approach to optimize adaptive interventions. In addition to innovative design strategies, novel data collection approaches that have the potential to improve the public-health dissemination include mHealth approaches and considering environment as a potential data source. Finally, becoming involved in advocacy via policy related work may help to improve the impact of evidence-based behavioral interventions. Innovative methods, if increasingly implemented, may have the ability to increase the public health impact of evidence-based behavioral interventions to prevent disease.

Frequency and prioritization of patient health risks from a structured health risk assessment.

PURPOSE: To describe the frequency and patient-reported readiness to change, desire to discuss, and perceived importance of 13 health risk factors in a diverse range of primary care practices. METHODS: Patients (n = 1,707) in 9 primary care practices in the My Own Health Report (MOHR) trial reported general, behavioral, and psychosocial risk factors (body mass index [BMI], health status, diet, physical activity, sleep, drug use, stress, anxiety or worry, and depression). We classified responses as "at risk" or "healthy" for each factor, and patients indicated their readiness to change and/or desire to discuss identified risk factors with providers. Patients also selected 1 of the factors they were ready to change as most important. We then calculated frequencies within and across these factors and examined variation by patient characteristics and across practices. RESULTS: On average, patients had 5.8 (SD = 2.12; range, 0-13) unhealthy behaviors and mental health risk factors. About 55% of patients had more than 6 risk factors. On average, patients wanted to change 1.2 and discuss 0.7 risks. The most common risks were inadequate fruit/vegetable consumption (84.5%) and overweight/obesity (79.6%). Patients were most ready to change BMI (33.3%) and depression (30.7%), and most wanted to discuss depression (41.9%) and anxiety or worry (35.2%). Overall, patients rated health status as most important. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing routine comprehensive health risk assessments in primary care will likely identify a high number of behavioral and psychosocial health risks. By soliciting patient priorities, providers and patients can better manage counseling and behavior change.

Adoption, reach, implementation, and maintenance of a behavioral and mental health assessment in primary care.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend screening patients for unhealthy behaviors and mental health concerns. Health risk assessments can systematically identify patient needs and trigger care. This study seeks to evaluate whether primary care practices can routinely implement such assessments into routine care. METHODS: As part of a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial, 9 diverse primary care practices implemented My Own Health Report (MOHR)-an electronic or paper-based health behavior and mental health assessment and feedback system paired with counseling and goal setting. We observed how practices integrated MOHR into their workflows, what additional practice staff time it required, and what percentage of patients completed a MOHR assessment (Reach). RESULTS: Most practices approached (60%) agreed to adopt MOHR. How they implemented MOHR depended on practice resources, informatics capacity, and patient characteristics. Three practices mailed patients invitations to complete MOHR on the Web, 1 called patients and completed MOHR over the telephone, 1 had patients complete MOHR on paper in the office, and 4 had staff help patients complete MOHR on the Web in the office. Overall, 3,591 patients were approached and 1,782 completed MOHR (Reach = 49.6%). Reach varied by implementation strategy with higher reach when MOHR was completed by staff than by patients (71.2% vs 30.2%, P <.001). No practices were able to sustain the complete MOHR assessment without adaptations after study completion. Fielding MOHR increased staff and clinician time an average of 28 minutes per visit. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices can implement health behavior and mental health assessments, but counseling patients effectively requires effort. Practices will need more support to implement and sustain assessments.

Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project.

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response. METHODS: This manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment--addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues--and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs. DISCUSSION: The MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01825746.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and cervical cancer: uptake and next steps.

Infection with a high-risk type of the human papillomavirus (HPV) is a major contributing factor in the vast majority of cervical cancers. Dissemination of the HPV vaccine is critical in reducing the risk of the disease. This descriptive review of HPV vaccine uptake in papers published between 2006 and 2011 focuses on studies conducted in girls and young women. In the United States, rates of immunization as per the protocol for teens (age 13-17 years) range from 6% to 75% and those for young women (age 18-26 years) range from 4% to 79%, although the samples and data collection methods vary. The epidemiology of HPV, the mechanisms of action, protocols for vaccine immunization, rates of uptake, and barriers to vaccination at the policy, provider, and patient levels are reviewed. Various intervention techniques are described, and policy-level programs, such as legislation supporting mandates, subsidized public education, and cost-reduction initiatives, are also explored. Increased distribution of the HPV vaccine in school-based clinics, evidencebased scripts for provider counseling of young patients and their parents, concurrent immunizations to adolescents, prevention visits, greater patient education and outreach, and the dissemination of academic detailing can help to boost vaccine uptake, particularly in underresourced communities. Population-based surveillance is necessary for robust estimates of uptake over time. Additional research is needed to comprehensively examine socio-demographic, psychosocial, and sociocultural factors that predict vaccine uptake according to the protocol. Increased study of the vaccine's long-term effectiveness, in both males and females and among extended age groups, is warranted.