Say Yes! COVID Test: A Health Communication Campaign to Encourage Use of Rapid, At-Home Antigen Testing in Underserved and Historically Marginalized Communities.

This paper describes a robust health communication campaign that supported Say Yes! COVID Test, the first National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored initiative promoting community-wide, at-home, rapid antigen testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary goals of the health communication campaign were to promote awareness of the program among local residents, facilitate test kit distribution, and encourage frequent test kit use. To plan and implement the campaign, the team applied principles of social marketing. The populations of focus were adult residents of selected communities in North Carolina (Greenville, Pitt County) and Tennessee (Chattanooga, Hamilton County), with an emphasis on underserved and historically marginalized populations. Following an accelerated planning phase, the campaign included digital, out-of-home, television, and radio advertising, in addition to public relations and organic social media. Collectively, this campaign coupled with our grassroots community engagement efforts facilitated the distribution of 66 035 test kits across both communities, or more than 1.6 million at-home tests. Facebook ads were the most successful in driving online test kit orders (7.9% conversion rate in Pitt County; 8.1% conversion rate in Chattanooga), although employing a variety of marketing channels enabled reach across multiple subpopulations. Market research data indicated high program awareness but low uptake in testing. Lessons learned from campaign planning and implementation can inform future public health initiatives, including selecting the appropriate marketing mix to facilitate awareness, and collaborating with community partners and local health departments to ensure successful program execution.

Retooling institutional support infrastructure for clinical research.

Clinical research activities at academic medical centers are challenging to oversee. Without effective research administration, a continually evolving set of regulatory and institutional requirements can divert investigator and study team attention away from a focus on scientific gain, study conduct, and patient safety. However, even when the need for research administration is recognized, there can be struggles over what form it should take. Central research administration may be viewed negatively, with individual groups preferring to maintain autonomy over processes. Conversely, a proliferation of individualized approaches across an institution can create inefficiencies or invite risk. This article describes experiences establishing a unified research support office at the Duke University School of Medicine based on a framework of customer support. The Duke Office of Clinical Research was formed in 2012 with a vision that research administration at academic medical centers should help clinical investigators navigate the complex research environment and operationalize research ideas. The office provides an array of services that have received high satisfaction ratings. The authors describe the ongoing culture change necessary for success of the unified research support office. Lessons learned from implementation of the Duke Office of Clinical Research may serve as a model for other institutions undergoing a similar transition.

The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials.

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.