A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings. CONCLUSION: Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

Plain Language vs Standard Format for Youth Understanding of COVID-19 Recommendations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To ensure that youths can make informed decisions about their health, it is important that health recommendations be presented for understanding by youths. Objective: To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of youths provided with a digital plain language recommendation (PLR) format vs the original standard language version (SLV) of a health recommendation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized clinical trial included individuals from any country who were 15 to 24 years of age, had internet access, and could read and understand English. The trial was conducted from May 27 to July 6, 2022, and included a qualitative component. Interventions: An online platform was used to randomize youths in a 1:1 ratio to an optimized digital PLR or SLV format of 1 of 2 health recommendations related to the COVID-19 vaccine; youth-friendly PLRs were developed in collaboration with youth partners and advisors. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to 7 comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior. After completion of the survey, participants indicated their interest in completing a 1-on-1 semistructured interview to reflect on their preferred digital format (PLR or SLV) and their outcome assessment survey response. Results: Of the 268 participants included in the final analysis, 137 were in the PLR group (48.4% female) and 131 were in the SLV group (53.4% female). Most participants (233 [86.9%]) were from North and South America. No significant difference was found in understanding scores between the PLR and SLV groups (mean difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 11.6%; P = .11). Participants found the PLR to be more accessible and usable (mean difference, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.05-0.63) and satisfying (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73) and had a stronger preference toward the PLR (mean difference, 4.8; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1 [4.0 indicated a neutral response]) compared with the SLV. No significant difference was found in intended behavior (mean difference, 0.22 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.74). Interviewees (n = 14) agreed that the PLR was easier to understand and generated constructive feedback to further improve the digital PLR. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the SLV, the PLR did not produce statistically significant findings in terms of understanding scores. Youths ranked it higher in terms of accessibility, usability, and satisfaction, suggesting that the PLR may be preferred for communicating health recommendations to youths. The interviews provided suggestions for further improving PLR formats. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05358990.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved parents' understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of plain language compared with standard language versions of COVID-19 recommendations specific to child health. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial with nested qualitative component. Trial was conducted online, internationally. Parents or legal guardians (≥18 years) of a child (<18 years) were eligible. Participants were randomized to receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) or standard (SLV) verison of a COVID-19 recommendation specific to child health. Primary outcome was understanding. Secondary outcomes included: preference, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, and intended behavior. Interviews explored perceptions and preferences for each format. RESULTS: Between July and August 2022, 295 parents were randomized; 241 (81.7%) completed the study (intervention n = 121, control n = 120). Mean understanding scores were significantly different between groups (PLR 3.96 [standard deviation (SD) 2.02], SLV 3.33 [SD 1.88], P = 0.014). Overall participants preferred the PLR version: mean rating 5.05/7.00 (95% CI 4.81, 5.29). Interviews (n = 12 parents) highlighted their preference for the PLR and provided insight on elements to enhance future knowledge mobilization of health recommendations. CONCLUSION: Compared to SLVs, parents preferred PLRs and better understood the recommendation. Guideline developers should strive to use plain language to increase understanding, uptake, and implementation of evidence by the public.

Knowledge mobilization activities to support decision-making by youth, parents, and adults using a systematic and living map of evidence and recommendations on COVID-19: protocol for three randomized controlled trials and qualitative user-experience studies.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public's understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population's results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990 . Registered on May 3, 2022.

The direct and indirect impact of COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and child health services in Africa: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to disrupt the availability and utilization of routine and emergency health care services, with differing impacts in jurisdictions across the world. In this scoping review, we set out to synthesize documentation of the direct and indirect effect of the pandemic, and national responses to it, on maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) in Africa. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to provide an overview of the most significant impacts identified up to March 15, 2022. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, HealthSTAR, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus electronic databases. We included peer reviewed literature that discussed maternal and child health in Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic, published from January 2020 to March 2022, and written in English. Papers that did not focus on the African region or an African country were excluded. A data-charting form was developed by the two reviewers to determine which themes to extract, and narrative descriptions were written about the extracted thematic areas. RESULTS: Four-hundred and seventy-eight articles were identified through our literature search and 27 were deemed appropriate for analysis. We identified three overarching themes: delayed or decreased care, disruption in service provision and utilization and mitigation strategies or recommendations. Our results show that minor consideration was given to preserving and promoting health service access and utilization for mothers and children, especially in historically underserved areas in Africa. CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed literature illuminates the need for continued prioritization of maternity services, immunization, and reproductive health services. This prioritization was not given the much-needed attention during the COVID-19 pandemic yet is necessary to shield the continent's most vulnerable population segments from the shocks of current and future global health emergencies.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Africa: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination against the novel coronavirus is one of the most effective strategies for combating the global Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy has emerged as a major obstacle in several regions of the world, including Africa. The objective of this rapid review was to summarize the literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Africa. METHODS: We searched Scopus, Web of Science, African Index Medicus, and OVID Medline for studies published from January 1, 2020, to March 8, 2022, examining acceptance or hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine in Africa. Study characteristics and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were extracted from the included articles. RESULTS: A total of 71 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Majority (n = 25, 35%) of the studies were conducted in Ethiopia. Studies conducted in Botswana, Cameroun, Cote D'Ivoire, DR Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe were also included in the review. The vaccine acceptance rate ranged from 6.9 to 97.9%. The major reasons for vaccine hesitancy were concerns with vaccine safety and side effects, lack of trust for pharmaceutical industries and misinformation or conflicting information from the media. Factors associated with positive attitudes towards the vaccine included being male, having a higher level of education, and fear of contracting the virus. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrated the contextualized and multifaceted reasons inhibiting or encouraging vaccine uptake in African countries. This evidence is key to operationalizing interventions based on facts as opposed to assumptions. Our paper provided important considerations for addressing the challenge of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and blunting the impact of the pandemic in Africa.

Applying equity-centered principles in an interprofessional global health course: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Medical students, practitioners and other health professionals are commonly unprepared to address the many complex issues that emerge while conducting research in the Global South. As a response to identified deficiencies in global health education, a hybrid online/face-to-face multi-institutional credit course was developed based on the equity-centered principles advanced by the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR), namely Authentic partnering, Inclusion, Shared benefits, Commitment to the future, Responsiveness to causes of inequities, and Humility. This study aimed to analyze the extent to which the course was effective in fortifying attitudes consistent with the CCGHR principles; identify successes and challenges; and assess how a course such as this can fill an identified gap. METHODS: This interprofessional course was offered to 25 graduate and postgraduate students in various health professions and public health. Faculty were drawn from medicine, public health, nursing and social sciences from four universities in Western Canada. A pre-post retrospective survey, key informant interviews and participant observation were used to gather data for this study. RESULTS: Findings showed that student attitudes regarding global health research and practice significantly evolved towards views consistent with the principles articulated. The multiple instructors and hybrid course format created both opportunities and challenges; the interprofessional nature of the cohort was considered a strong asset, as was the fact that many students came from the Global South. Some students suggested that the course could be further strengthened by concretely partnering with institutions in the Global South rather than offered solely to learners registered in universities in the Global North. CONCLUSIONS: While weaknesses were identified, results support the conclusion that a course focused on the CCGHR principles could be useful in preparing the next generation of global health researchers and practitioners to mitigate historical limitations in this field. Longitudinal follow-up is warranted to provide more definitive conclusions.