Social connectedness and diabetes self-management across the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Structural social connectedness is the structure and size of a person's social network, including whether persons live with or have regular contact with others. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted structures that facilitate social connectedness. This study investigated how a person's structural social connectedness influenced diabetes self-management strategies through the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: The study followed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, quantitative data were collected via surveys of 54 patients living with diabetes (67% female, Mage of 60 [12] years) in 2021. Then in 2022, we interviewed 25 patients (64% female, Mage of 62 [9] years) as a follow-up to the survey to help explain quantitative findings. Longitudinal mixed methods analysis integrated both phases to offer a holistic view of the factors influencing diabetes self-management. RESULTS: A full-factorial analysis of covariance tested home and workplace social connectedness effects onto glycemic control and four self-management measures. In integrated analysis, researchers categorized patients into four groups by level of home and workplace social connectedness. Individuals with home social connectedness were more likely to overcome pandemic-related self-management challenges than those without home social connectedness. Although the workplace provided social connectedness, it imposed structural barriers to self-management. DISCUSSION: Structural social connectedness influenced how patients navigated diabetes self-management challenges through the COVID-19 pandemic. Results suggest clinicians should consider how home and workplace connectedness interact to facilitate or impede patient self-management. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Education, trust, and likelihood to vaccinate against COVID-19 among patients with diabetes in the American South.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explain the relationship among education, likelihood to vaccinate for COVID-19, and trust in healthcare providers among patients living with diabetes in the American South. METHODS: Explanatory iterative sequential mixed methods design combined retrospective chart review, self-report surveys, and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Analysis of covariance revealed that severity of diabetes was not linked to vaccine acceptance. Overall, patients reported higher likelihood to vaccinate if their healthcare providers strongly recommend the vaccine. People with "some college" education reported lowest likelihood to vaccinate, before and after their healthcare providers' strong recommendation. Integrated analysis revealed the complexity of patient-provider trust and vaccination decisions. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of COVID vaccination, particularly as conspiracy theories entered the mainstream, measures of trust in the system may be a clearer indicator of vaccine decision making than trust in personal physician. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The nonlinear relationship between education and likelihood to vaccinate challenges providers to talk to patients about knowledge and understanding beyond a superficial, quantitative screening question about education. Health systems and public health officials need to find strategies to build trusting relationships for patients across systems, such as community health workers.

The Power of One Word to Paint a Halo or a Horn: Demonstrating the Halo Effect in Learner Handover and Subsequent Evaluation.

PURPOSE: Learner evaluation based upon direct observation is a cornerstone of modern competency-based medical education. Learner handover has become a widely accepted practice. Cognitive attribution bias is a potential threat to the validity of learner evaluation following learner handover. METHOD: In this 2 x 2 (learner handover: halos/horns x learner gender: man/woman) factorial, nonequivalent comparison group experimental design, registered attendees at a national medical education conference watched 1 of 2 videos (depicting a woman learner or man learner) of simulated learner-patient encounters. Data were collected on April 30 and May 1, 2022. Participants received learner handover conditioning before watching the video. The conditioning was randomized to suggest the learner they were about to watch was either "above-average" (halos) or "below-average" (horns). Following the video, participants completed an evaluation form. RESULTS: Participants rated the learner in a video encounter preceded by a horns statement significantly lower than the learner in a video encounter preceded by a halo statement, F (1,65) = 10.15, P < .01, η 2 = .14, horns mean adj = 12.49 (CI 11.34, 13.63), halo mean adj = 15.10 (CI 13.93, 16.28). This represented a scoring difference of 2.61 points on a 30-point scale. More years of teaching experience was negatively associated with the score, F (1,65) = 13.44, P < .001, η 2 = .17. CONCLUSIONS: Learner conditioning differing by a single word, labeling a learner as either "above-average" or "below-average" resulted in a large difference in scoring by medical educators.