Implementing decision aids for cardiovascular disease prevention: stakeholder interviews and case studies in Australian primary care.

BACKGROUND: Australian cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend absolute CVD risk assessment, but less than half of eligible patients have the required risk factors recorded due to fragmented implementation over the last decade. Co-designed decision aids for general practitioners (GPs) and consumers have been developed that improve knowledge barriers to guideline-recommended CVD risk assessment and management. This study used a stakeholder consultation process to identify and pilot test the feasibility of implementation strategies for these decision aids in Australian primary care. METHODS: This mixed methods study included: (1) stakeholder consultation to map existing implementation strategies (2018-20); (2) interviews with 29 Primary Health Network (PHN) staff from all Australian states and territories to identify new implementation opportunities (2021); (3) pilot testing the feasibility of low, medium, and high resource implementation strategies (2019-21). Framework Analysis was used for qualitative data and Google analytics provided decision support usage data over time. RESULTS: Informal stakeholder discussions indicated a need to partner with existing programs delivered by the Heart Foundation and PHNs. PHN interviews identified the importance of linking decision aids with GP education resources, quality improvement activities, and consumer-focused prevention programs. Participants highlighted the importance of integration with general practice processes, such as business models, workflows, medical records and clinical audit software. Specific implementation strategies were identified as feasible to pilot during COVID-19: (1) low resource: adding website links to local health area guidelines for clinicians and a Heart Foundation toolkit for primary care providers; (2) medium resource: presenting at GP education conferences and integrating the resources into audit and feedback reports; (3) high resource: auto-populate the risk assessment and decision aids from patient records via clinical audit software. CONCLUSIONS: This research identified a wide range of feasible strategies to implement decision aids for CVD risk assessment and management. The findings will inform the translation of new CVD guidelines in primary care. Future research will use economic evaluation to explore the added value of higher versus lower resource implementation strategies.

Could nudges reduce health literacy disparities in CVD prevention? An experiment using alternative messages for CVD risk assessment screening.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of SMS nudge messages amongst people with varying health literacy on their intention to get a Heart Health Check. METHODS: A 3 (Initial SMS: scarcity, regret, or control nudge) x 2 (Reminder SMS: social norm or control nudge) factorial design was used in a hypothetical online experiment. 705 participants eligible for Heart Health Checks were recruited. Outcomes included intention to attend a Heart Health Check and psychological responses. RESULTS: In the control condition, people with lower health literacy had lower behavioural intentions compared to those with higher health literacy (p = .011). Scarcity and regret nudges closed this gap, resulting in similar intention levels for lower and higher health literacy. There was no interactive effect of the reminder nudge and health literacy (p = .724). CONCLUSION: Scarcity and regret nudge messages closed the health literacy gap in behavioural intentions compared to a control message, while a reminder nudge had limited additional benefit. Health literacy should be considered in behavioural intervention evaluations to ensure health equity is addressed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results informed a national screening program using a universal precautions approach, where messages with higher engagement for lower health literacy groups were used in clinical practice.

What makes an action plan "100% me"? Think aloud interviews about CVD prevention tools for varying health literacy needs.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Health behaviour change can be difficult to maintain. Action plans can address this issue, however, there has been little qualitative research to understand how to optimise action plan interventions. This study explored how people engage with a specific type of action plan intervention, the "volitional help sheet," in a cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention context. METHODS: Twenty adults in the target age for CVD risk assessment (45 to 74 years) with varying health literacy participated in interviews and created an action plan to change their behaviour. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Participants described how engagement with plans was related to how personally relevant the target behaviour and the options within the plan were. Also important was participants visualising themselves enacting the plan when deciding which option to choose. Amongst participants who already engaged in a target behaviour, some did not perceive the plan was useful; others perceived the plan as a helpful prompt or a formalisation of existing plans. For some, the barriers to behaviour change were out of the scope of an action plan, highlighting the need for alternative supports. CONCLUSION: This study provides qualitative insights into unanticipated ways that people with varying health literacy use action plans, providing new guidance for future developers. SO WHAT?: Not all action plans are created equal. Careful selection of behavioural targets and plan options and encouraging users to imagine the plan may enhance user engagement. Alternative behaviour change strategies should be available if key barriers cannot be addressed by the plan.

Barriers and facilitators to sustainable operating theatres: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: The health sector contributes significantly to the climate crisis. Operating theatres (OTs) in particular are a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and waste, and while there are several evidence-based guidelines to reduce this impact, these are often not followed. The authors systematically reviewed the literature to identify barriers and facilitators of sustainable behaviour in OTs, categorising these using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and Global Health databases were searched for articles published between January 2000 and June 2023, using the concepts: barriers and facilitators, sustainability, and surgery. Two reviewers screened abstracts from identified studies, evaluated quality, and extracted data. Identified determinants were mapped to TDF domains and further themes as required. The results were reported in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were selected for analysis and assessment (17 surveys and four interview studies) comprising 8286 participants, including surgeons, nurses, and anaesthetists. Eighteen themes across 10 TDF domains were identified. The most common barriers to adoption of green behaviours in OTs were in domains of: 'knowledge' ( N =18), for example knowledge of sustainable practices; 'environmental context and resources' ( N =16) for example personnel shortage and workload and inadequate recycling facilities; 'social influences' ( N =9) for example lack of leadership/organisational mandate or support; 'beliefs about consequences' ( N =9) for example concerns regarding safety. Intention was the most common facilitator, with 11 studies citing it. CONCLUSIONS: Despite intentions to adopt sustainable practices in OTs, this review identified several barriers to doing so. Interventions should focus on mitigating these, especially by improving staff's knowledge of sustainability practices and working within the environmental context and time pressures. Furthermore, institutional change programmes and policies are needed to prioritise sustainability at the hospital and trust level. Additional qualitative work should also be conducted using behavioural frameworks, to more comprehensively investigate barriers and determinants to decarbonise OTs.

Addressing Behavioral Barriers to COVID-19 Testing With Health Literacy-Sensitive eHealth Interventions: Results From 2 National Surveys and 2 Randomized Experiments.

BACKGROUND: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for COVID-19 was crucial in Australia's prevention strategy in the first 2 years of the pandemic, including required testing for symptoms, contact with cases, travel, and certain professions. However, several months into the pandemic, half of Australians were still not getting tested for respiratory symptoms, and little was known about the drivers of and barriers to COVID-19 PCR testing as a novel behavior at that time. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify and address COVID-19 testing barriers, and test the effectiveness of multiple eHealth interventions on knowledge for people with varying health literacy levels. METHODS: The intervention was developed in 4 phases. Phase 1 was a national survey conducted in June 2020 (n=1369), in which testing barriers were coded using the capability-opportunity-motivation-behavior framework. Phase 2 was a national survey conducted in November 2020 (n=2034) to estimate the prevalence of testing barriers and health literacy disparities. Phase 3 was a randomized experiment testing health literacy-sensitive written information for a wide range of barriers between February and March 2021 (n=1314), in which participants chose their top 3 barriers to testing to view a tailored intervention. Phase 4 was a randomized experiment testing 2 audio-visual interventions addressing common testing barriers for people with lower health literacy in November 2021, targeting young adults as a key group endorsing misinformation (n=1527). RESULTS: In phase 1, barriers were identified in all 3 categories: capability (eg, understanding which symptoms to test for), opportunity (eg, not being able to access a PCR test), and motivation (eg, not believing the symptoms are those of COVID-19). Phase 2 identified knowledge gaps for people with lower versus higher health literacy. Phase 3 found no differences between the intervention (health literacy-sensitive text for top 3 barriers) and control groups. Phase 4 showed that a fact-based animation or a TikTok-style video presenting the same facts in a humorous style increased knowledge about COVID-19 testing compared with government information. However, no differences were found for COVID-19 testing intentions. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a wide range of barriers to a novel testing behavior, PCR testing for COVID-19. These barriers were prevalent even in a health system where COVID-19 testing was free and widely available. We showed that key capability barriers, such as knowledge gaps, can be improved with simple videos targeting people with lower health literacy. Additional behavior change strategies are required to address motivational issues to support testing uptake. Future research will explore health literacy strategies in the current context of self-administered rapid antigen tests. The findings may inform planning for future COVID-19 variant outbreaks and new public health emergencies where novel testing behaviors are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000876897, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=382318 ; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001355965, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380916&isReview=true.

Behavioural change interventions encouraging clinicians to reduce carbon emissions in clinical activity: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical activity accounts for 70-80% of the carbon footprint of healthcare. A critical component of reducing emissions is shifting clinical behaviour towards reducing, avoiding, or replacing carbon-intensive healthcare. The objective of this systematic review was to find, map and assess behaviour change interventions that have been implemented in healthcare settings to encourage clinicians to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their clinical activity. METHODS: Studies eligible for inclusion were those reporting on a behaviour change intervention to reduce carbon emissions via changes in healthcare workplace behaviour. Six databases were searched in November 2021 (updated February 2022). A pre-determined template was used to extract data from the studies, and risk of bias was assessed. The behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in the interventions were coded using the BCT Taxonomy. RESULTS: Six full-text studies were included in this review, and 14 conference abstracts. All studies used a before-after intervention design. The majority were UK studies (n = 15), followed by US (n = 3) and Australia (n = 2). Of the full-text studies, four focused on reducing the emissions associated with anaesthesia, and two aimed at reducing unnecessary test ordering. Of the conference abstracts, 13 focused on anaesthetic gas usage, and one on respiratory inhalers. The most common BCTs used were social support, salience of consequences, restructuring the physical environment, prompts and cues, feedback on outcome of behaviour, and information about environmental consequences. All studies reported success of their interventions in reducing carbon emissions, prescribing, ordering, and financial costs; however, only two studies reported the magnitude and significance of their intervention's success. All studies scored at least one item as unclear or at risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Most interventions to date have targeted anaesthesia or pathology test ordering in hospital settings. Due to the diverse study outcomes and consequent inability to pool the results, this review is descriptive only, limiting our ability to conclude the effectiveness of interventions. Multiple BCTs were used in each study but these were not compared, evaluated, or used systematically. All studies lacked rigour in study design and measurement of outcomes. REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study was registered on Prospero (ID number CRD42021272526) (Breth-Petersen et al., Prospero 2021: CRD42021272526).

Biological age calculators to motivate lifestyle change: Environmental scan of online tools and evaluation of behaviour change techniques.

OBJECTIVE: "Biological age" calculators are widely used as a way of communicating health risk. This study evaluated the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) within such tools, underlying algorithm differences and suitability for people with varying health literacy. METHODS: Two authors entered terms into Google (eg, biological/heart age) and recorded the first 50 results. A standard patient profile was entered into eligible biological age calculators. Evaluation was based on Michie et al's BCT taxonomy and a readability calculator. RESULTS: From 4000 search results, 20 calculators were identified: 11 for cardiovascular age, 7 for general biological age and 2 for fitness age. The calculators gave variable results for the same 65-year-old profile: biological age ranged from younger to older (57-87 years), while heart age was always older (69-85+ years). Only 11/20 (55%) provided a reference explaining the underlying algorithm. The average reading level was Grade 10 (range 8.7-12.4; SD 1.44). The most common BCTs were salience of consequences, information about health consequences and credible source. CONCLUSIONS: Biological age tools have highly variable results, BCTs and readability. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Developers are advised to use validated models, explain the result at the average Grade 8 reading level, and incorporate a clear call to action using evidence-based behaviour change techniques.

Collateral positives of COVID-19 for culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Western Sydney, Australia.

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities in Western Sydney have experienced any positive effects during the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, what these were. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey with ten language groups was conducted from 21st March to 9th July 2021 in Sydney, Australia. Participants were recruited through bilingual multicultural health staff and health care interpreter service staff and answered a question, 'In your life, have you experienced any positive effects from the COVID-19 pandemic?' Differences were explored by demographic variables. Free-text responses were thematically coded using the Content Analysis method. RESULTS: 707 people completed the survey, aged 18 to >70, 49% males and 51% females. Only 161 (23%) of those surveyed reported any positive impacts. There were significant differences in the proportion of those who reported positives based on age (p = 0.004), gender (p = 0.013), language (p = 0.003), health literacy (p = 0.014), English language proficiency (p = 0.003), education (p = <0.001) and whether participants had children less than 18 years at home (p = 0.001). Content Analysis of open-ended responses showed that, of those that did report positives, the top themes were 'Family time' (44%), 'Improved self-care' (31%) and, 'Greater connection with others' (17%). DISCUSSION: Few surveyed participants reported finding any positives stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding is in stark contrast to related research in Australia with participants whose native language is English in which many more people experienced positives. The needs of people from CALD backgrounds must inform future responses to community crises to facilitate an equitable effect of any collateral positives that may arise.

Testing behaviour may bias observational studies of vaccine effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Recent observational studies suggest that vaccines may have little effect in preventing infection with the Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the observed effects may be confounded by patient factors, preventive behaviours, or differences in testing behaviour. To assess potential confounding, we examined differences in testing behaviour between unvaccinated and vaccinated populations. METHODS: We recruited 1,526 Australian adults for an online randomized study about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing in late 2021, collecting self-reported vaccination status and three measures of COVID-19 testing behaviour: testing in past month or ever and test intention if they woke with a sore throat. We examined the association between testing intentions and vaccination status in the trial's baseline data. RESULTS: Of the 1,526 participants (mean age 31 y), 22% had a COVID-19 test in the past month and 61% ever; 17% were unvaccinated, 11% were partially vaccinated (one dose), and 71% were fully vaccinated (two or more doses). Fully vaccinated participants were twice as likely as those who were unvaccinated (relative risk [RR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.8 to 2.8, p < 0.001) to report positive COVID testing intentions. Partially vaccinated participants had less positive intentions than fully vaccinated participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89, p < 0.001) but higher intentions than unvaccinated participants (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.6, p = 0.002). DISCUSSION: Vaccination predicted greater COVID-19 testing intentions and would substantially bias observed vaccine effectiveness. To account for differential testing behaviours, test-negative designs are currently the preferred option, but their assumptions need more thorough examination.

HISTORIQUE: Selon de récentes études observationnelles, les vaccins peuvent avoir peu d'effet sur la prévention de l'infection par le variant Omicron du coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère. Cependant, les effets observés peuvent être biaisés par des facteurs liés aux patients, des comportements préventifs ou des différences de comportements liés aux tests. Pour évaluer les facteurs confusionnels potentiels, les auteurs ont examiné les différences de comportements liés aux tests entre les populations non vaccinées et vaccinées. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les auteurs ont recruté 1 526 adultes australiens en vue d'une étude randomisée en ligne sur les tests de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) à la fin de 2021, afin de colliger l'état vaccinal autodéclaré et trois mesures sur les comportements liés aux tests de la COVID-19 : test au cours du mois précédent ou jamais auparavant et intention de se soumettre à un test en cas de mal de gorge. Ils ont examiné l'association entre les intentions de se soumettre à un test et l'état vaccinal dans les données de référence de l'étude. RÉSULTATS: Sur les 1 526 participants (d'un âge moyen de 31 ans), 22 % avaient subi un test de COVID-19 au cours du mois précédent et 61 % n'en avaient jamais subi; 17 % n'étaient pas vaccinés, 11 % l'étaient partiellement (une dose) et 71 % l'étaient pleinement (au moins deux doses). Les participants pleinement vaccinés étaient deux fois plus susceptibles que ceux qui ne l'étaient pas (risque relatif [RR] 2,2, IC à 95 % 1,8 à 2,8, p < 0,001) de déclarer des intentions de se faire tester contre la COVID-19. Les participants partiellement vaccinés avaient des intentions moins positives que les participants pleinement vaccinés (RR 0,68, IC à 95 % 0,52 à 0,89, p < 0,001), mais plus élevées que ceux qui ne l'étaient pas du tout (RR 1,5, IC à 95 % 1,4 à 1,6, p = 0,002). DISCUSSION: La vaccination était prédictive de plus grandes intentions de subir un test de COVID-19 et établissait un biais important à l'égard de l'efficacité réelle des vaccins. Pour tenir compte des comportements différentiels vis-à-vis des tests, les méthodologies de tests négatifs constituent actuellement la solution privilégiée, mais cette hypothèse doit être approfondie.

Decision Support Tools for Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Do Not Meet Health Literacy Needs: A Systematic Environmental Scan and Evaluation.

A shared decision-making approach is considered optimal in primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Evidence-based patient decision aids can facilitate this but do not always meet patients' health literacy needs. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans are increasingly used in addition to traditional cardiovascular risk scores, but the availability of high-quality decision aids to support shared decision-making is unknown. We used an environmental scan methodology to review decision support for CAC scans and assess their suitability for patients with varying health literacy. We systematically searched for freely available web-based decision support tools that included information about CAC scans for primary CVD prevention and were aimed at the public. Eligible materials were independently evaluated using validated tools to assess qualification as a decision aid, understandability, actionability, and readability. We identified 13 eligible materials. Of those, only one qualified as a decision aid, and one item presented quantitative information about the potential harms of CAC scans. None presented quantitative information about both benefits and harms of CAC scans. Mean understandability was 68%, and actionability was 48%. Mean readability (12.8) was much higher than the recommended grade 8 level. Terms used for CAC scans were highly variable. Current materials available to people considering a CAC scan do not meet the criteria to enable informed decision-making, nor do they meet the health literacy needs of the general population. Clinical guidelines, including CAC scans for primary prevention, must be supported by best practice decision aids to support decision-making.

Psychological, social and financial impacts of COVID-19 on culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Sydney, Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the psychological, social and financial outcomes of COVID-19-and the sociodemographic predictors of those outcomes-among culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Sydney, Australia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey informed by the Framework for Culturally Competent Health Research conducted between March and July 2021. SETTING: Participants who primarily speak a language other than English at home were recruited from Greater Western Sydney, New South Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 708 community members (mean age: 45.4 years (range 18-91)). 88% (n=622) were born outside of Australia, 31% (n=220) did not speak English well or at all, and 41% (n=290) had inadequate health literacy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirteen items regarding COVID-19-related psychological, social and financial outcomes were adapted from validated scales, previous surveys or co-designed in partnership with Multicultural Health and interpreter service staff. Logistic regression models (using poststratification weighted frequencies) were used to identify sociodemographic predictors of outcomes. Surveys were available in English or translated (11 languages). RESULTS: In this analysis, conducted prior to the 2021 COVID-19 outbreak in Sydney, 25% of the sample reported feeling nervous or stressed most/all of the time and 22% felt lonely or alone most/all of the time. A quarter of participants reported negative impacts on their spousal relationships as a result of COVID-19 and most parents reported that their children were less active (64%), had more screen time (63%) and were finding school harder (45%). Mean financial burden was 2.9/5 (95% CI 2.8 to 2.9). Regression analyses consistently showed more negative outcomes for those with comorbidities and differences across language groups. CONCLUSION: Culturally and linguistically diverse communities experience significant psychological, social and financial impacts of COVID-19. A whole-of-government approach is needed to support rapid co-design of culturally safe support packages in response to COVID-19 and other national health emergencies, tailored appropriately to specific language groups and accounting for pre-existing health disparities.

The Impact of Health Literacy-Sensitive Design and Heart Age in a Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Decision Aid: Randomized Controlled Trial and End-User Testing.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is an essential principle for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), where asymptomatic people consider lifelong medication and lifestyle changes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and evaluate the first literacy-sensitive CVD prevention decision aid (DA) developed for people with low health literacy, and investigate the impact of literacy-sensitive design and heart age. METHODS: We developed a standard DA based on international standards. The standard DA was based on our existing general practitioner DA. The literacy-sensitive DA included simple language, supporting images, white space, and a lifestyle action plan. The control DA used Heart Foundation materials. A randomized trial included 859 people aged 45-74 years using a 3 (DA: standard, literacy-sensitive, control) ×2 (heart age: heart age + percentage risk, percentage risk only) factorial design, with outcomes including prevention intentions and behaviors, gist and verbatim knowledge of risk, credibility, emotional response, and decisional conflict. We iteratively improved the literacy-sensitive version based on end-user testing interviews with 20 people with varying health literacy levels. RESULTS: Immediately after the intervention (n=859), there were no differences in any outcome among the DA groups. The heart age group was less likely to have a positive emotional response, perceived the message as less credible, and had higher gist and verbatim knowledge of heart age risk but not percentage risk. After 4 weeks (n=596), the DA group had better gist knowledge of percentage risk than the control group. The literacy-sensitive DA group had higher fruit consumption, and the standard DA group had better verbatim knowledge of percentage risk. Verbatim knowledge was higher for heart age than for percentage risk among those who received both. CONCLUSIONS: The literacy-sensitive DA resulted in increased knowledge of CVD risk and increased fruit consumption in participants with varying health literacy levels and CVD risk results. Adding heart age did not increase lifestyle change intentions or behavior but did affect psychological outcomes, consistent with previous findings. This tool will be integrated with additional resources to improve other lifestyle outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000806965; https://tinyurl.com/226yhk8a.

Perceived public health threat a key factor for willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination rollout against COVID-19 is underway across multiple countries worldwide. Although the vaccine is free, rollout might still be compromised by hesitancy or concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We conducted two online surveys of Australian adults in April (during national lockdown; convenience cross-sectional sample) and November (very few cases of COVID-19; nationally representative sample) 2020, prior to vaccine rollout. We asked about intentions to have a potential COVID-19 vaccine (If a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, I will get it) and free-text responses (November only). RESULTS: After adjustment for differences in sample demographics, the estimated proportion agreeing to a COVID-19 vaccine if it became available in April (n = 1146) was 76.3%. In November (n = 1941) this was estimated at 71.5% of the sample; additional analyses identified that the variation was driven by differences in perceived public health threat between April and November. Across both surveys, female gender, being younger, having inadequate health literacy and lower education were associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, belief that data on the efficacy of vaccines is 'largely made up', having lower confidence in government, and lower perception of COVID-19 as a public health threat, were also associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The top three reasons for agreeing to vaccinate (November only) were to protect myself and others, moral responsibility, and having no reason not to get it. For those who were indifferent or disagreeing to vaccinate, safety concerns were the top reason, followed by indecision and lack of trust in the vaccine respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight some factors related to willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine prior to one being available in Australia. Now that the vaccine is being offered, this study identifies key issues that can inform public health messaging to address vaccine hesitancy.

Positive outcomes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: To investigate whether Australians have experienced any positive effects during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: National online longitudinal survey. As part of a June 2020 survey, participants (n = 1370) were asked 'In your life, have you experienced any positive effects from the COVID-19 pandemic' (yes/no) and also completed the World Health Organisation-Five well-being index. Differences were explored by demographic variables. Free-text responses were thematically coded. RESULTS: Nine hundred sixty participants (70%) reported experiencing at least one positive effect during the COVID-19 pandemic. Living with others (P = .045) and employment situation (P < .001) at baseline (April) were associated with experiencing positive effects. Individuals working for pay from home were more likely to experience positive effects compared to those who were not working for pay (aOR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.63, P < .001) or who were working for pay outside the home (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.58, P < .001). 54.2% of participants reported a sufficient level of well-being, 23.2% low well-being and a further 22.6% very low well-being. Of those experiencing positive effects, 945/960 (98%) provided an explanation. The three most common themes were 'Family time' (33%), 'Work flexibility' (29%) and 'Calmer life' (19%). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of participants reported positive effects resulting from changes to daily life due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. SO WHAT: The needs of people living alone, and of those having to work outside the home or who are unemployed, should be considered by health policymakers and employers in future pandemic preparedness efforts.

COVID-19 Testing and Vaccine Willingness: Cross-Sectional Survey in a Culturally Diverse Community in Sydney, Australia.

Objective: The current study examined patterns in COVID-19 testing and vaccination intentions across multiple language groups in Greater Western Sydney, Australia. Methods: Participants completed a cross-sectional survey available from March 21 to July 9, 2021 in Sydney, Australia. Surveys were available in English or translated (11 languages). Participants could complete surveys independently or with support from bilingual staff. Logistic regression models using poststratification weighted frequencies identified factors associated with testing and vaccination intentions. Results: Most of the 708 participants (88%, n=622) were not born in Australia; 31% reported that they did not speak English well or at all (n=220); 70% had no tertiary qualifications (n=497); and 41% had inadequate health literacy (n=290). Half (53.0%) reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine if recommended to them (n=375); 18% were unwilling (n=127), and the remainder unsure (29%, n=205). These proportions varied significantly by language group (p<0.001). Participants were more likely to be unwilling/hesitant if they were female (p=0.02) or did not use Australian commercial information sources (p=0.01). Concerns about side effects (30.4%, n=102) and safety (23.9%, n=80), were key reported barriers to vaccination. Most participants reported high testing intention (77.2%, n=546), with differences observed across language groups (p<0.001). The most frequently reported barrier to testing was concerns about infection at the clinic (26.1%) followed by concerns that testing was painful (25.3%). Conclusion: Different language groups have unique and specific needs to support uptake of COVID-19 testing and vaccination. Health services must work collaboratively with culturally and linguistically diverse communities to provide tailored support to encourage COVID-19 testing and vaccination.

Interventions Using Heart Age for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication: Systematic Review of Psychological, Behavioral, and Clinical Effects.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication is a challenge for clinical practice, where physicians find it difficult to explain the absolute risk of a CVD event to patients with varying health literacy. Converting the probability to heart age is increasingly used to promote lifestyle change, but a rapid review of biological age interventions found no clear evidence that they motivate behavior change. OBJECTIVE: In this review, we aim to identify the content and effects of heart age interventions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies presenting heart age interventions to adults for CVD risk communication in April 2020 (later updated in March 2021). The Johanna Briggs risk of bias assessment tool was applied to randomized studies. Behavior change techniques described in the intervention methods were coded. RESULTS: From a total of 7926 results, 16 eligible studies were identified; these included 5 randomized web-based experiments, 5 randomized clinical trials, 2 mixed methods studies with quantitative outcomes, and 4 studies with qualitative analysis. Direct comparisons between heart age and absolute risk in the 5 web-based experiments, comprising 5514 consumers, found that heart age increased positive or negative emotional responses (4/5 studies), increased risk perception (4/5 studies; but not necessarily more accurate) and recall (4/4 studies), reduced credibility (2/3 studies), and generally had no effect on lifestyle intentions (4/5 studies). One study compared heart age and absolute risk to fitness age and found reduced lifestyle intentions for fitness age. Heart age combined with additional strategies (eg, in-person or phone counseling) in applied settings for 9582 patients improved risk control (eg, reduced cholesterol levels and absolute risk) compared with usual care in most trials (4/5 studies) up to 1 year. However, clinical outcomes were no different when directly compared with absolute risk (1/1 study). Mixed methods studies identified consultation time and content as important outcomes in actual consultations using heart age tools. There were differences between people receiving an older heart age result and those receiving a younger or equal to current heart age result. The heart age interventions included a wide range of behavior change techniques, and conclusions were sometimes biased in favor of heart age with insufficient supporting evidence. The risk of bias assessment indicated issues with all randomized clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review provide little evidence that heart age motivates lifestyle behavior change more than absolute risk, but either format can improve clinical outcomes when combined with other behavior change strategies. The label for the heart age concept can affect outcomes and should be pretested with the intended audience. Future research should consider consultation time and differentiate between results of older and younger heart age. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): NPRR2-10.1101/2020.05.03.20089938.

Contextualising COVID-19 prevention behaviour over time in Australia: Patterns and long-term predictors from April to July 2020 in an online social media sample.

BACKGROUND: In Australia in March 2020 a national public health directive required that non-essential workers stay at home, except for essential activities. These restrictions began easing in May 2020 as community transmission slowed. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated changes in COVID prevention behaviours from April-July 2020, and psychosocial predictors of these behaviours. METHODS: An Australia-wide (national) survey was conducted in April, with monthly follow-up over four months. Participants who were adults (18+ years), currently residing in Australia and who could read and understand English were eligible. Recruitment was via online social media. Analysis sample included those who provided responses to the baseline survey (April) and at least one subsequent follow-up survey (N = 1834 out of a possible 3216 who completed the April survey). 71.7% of the sample was female (n = 1,322). Principal components analysis (PCA) combined self-reported adherence across seven prevention behaviours. PCA identified two behaviour types: 'distancing' (e.g. staying 1.5m away) and 'hygiene' (e.g. washing hands), explaining 28.3% and 24.2% of variance, respectively. Distancing and hygiene behaviours were analysed individually using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: On average, participants agreed with statements of adherence for all behaviours (means all above 4 out of 7). Distancing behaviours declined each month (p's < .001), whereas hygiene behaviours remained relatively stable. For distancing, stronger perceptions of societal risk, self-efficacy to maintain distancing, and greater perceived social obligation at baseline were associated with adherence in June and July (p's<0.05). For hygiene, the only significant correlate of adherence in June and July was belief that one's actions could prevent infection of family members (p < .001). CONCLUSION: High adherence to COVID prevention behaviours were reported in this social media sample; however, distancing behaviours tended to decrease over time. Belief in social responsibility may be an important aspect to consider in encouraging distancing behaviours. These findings have implications for managing a shift from government-imposed restrictions to individual responsibility.

The Psychological Impact of Hypertension During COVID-19 Restrictions: Retrospective Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how people with hypertension are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic given their increased risk, and whether targeted public health strategies are needed. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective case-control study compared people with hypertension to matched healthy controls during the COVID-19 lockdown to determine whether they have higher risk perceptions, anxiety, and vaccination intentions. METHODS: Baseline data from a national survey were collected in April 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdown in Australia. People who reported hypertension with no other chronic conditions were randomly matched to healthy controls of similar age, gender, education, and health literacy level. A subset including participants with hypertension was followed up at 2 months after restrictions were eased. Risk perceptions, anxiety, and vaccination intentions were measured in April and June. RESULTS: Of the 4362 baseline participants, 466 (10.7%) reported hypertension with no other chronic conditions. A subset of 1369 people were followed up at 2 months, which included 147 (10.7%) participants with hypertension. At baseline, perceived seriousness was high for both hypertension and control groups. The hypertension group reported greater anxiety compared to the controls and were more willing to vaccinate against influenza, but COVID-19 vaccination intentions were similar. At follow-up, these differences were no longer present in the longitudinal subsample. Perceived seriousness and anxiety had decreased, but vaccination intentions for both influenza and COVID-19 remained high across groups (>80%). CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety was above normal levels during the COVID-19 lockdown. It was higher in the hypertension group, which also had higher vaccination intentions. Groups that are more vulnerable to COVID-19 may require targeted mental health screening during periods of greater risk. Despite a decrease in perceived risk and anxiety after 2 months of lockdown restrictions, vaccination intentions remained high, which is encouraging for the future prevention of COVID-19.

The impact of theory-based messages on COVID-19 vaccination intentions: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Uptake of vaccination against COVID-19 is key to controlling the pandemic. However, a significant proportion of people report that they do not intend to have a vaccine, often because of concerns they have about vaccine side effects or safety. This study will assess the impact of theory-based messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention, drawing on the Necessity-Concerns framework to address previously reported beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination, and assess whether hypothesised variables (illness coherence, perceived necessity and concerns) mediate change in vaccination intention. TRIAL DESIGN: Prospective, parallel two-arm, individually randomised (1:1) trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged over 18 years, living in Scotland and not vaccinated for COVID-19. A quota sampling approach will be used with the aim of achieving a nationally representative sample on gender, region and ethnic group, with oversampling of individuals with no educational qualifications or with only school-level qualifications. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Brief exposure to online text and image-based messages addressing necessity beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination. Comparator: Brief exposure to online text and image-based messages containing general information about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary outcome: Self-reported intention to receive a vaccine for COVID-19 if invited, immediately post-intervention. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Self-reported COVID-19 illness coherence, perceived necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine and concerns about a COVID-19 vaccine, immediately post-intervention. RANDOMISATION: Quasi-randomisation performed automatically by online survey software, by creating a variable derived from the number of seconds in the minute that the participant initiates the survey. Participants starting the survey at 0-14 or 30-44 seconds in the minute are allocated to the intervention and 15-29 or 45-59 seconds to the comparator. BLINDING (MASKING): Participants will not be blinded to group assignment but will not be informed of the purpose of the study until they have completed the follow-up survey. Investigators will be blinded to allocation as all procedures will be undertaken digitally and remotely without any investigator contact with participants. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 1,094 will be randomised 1:1 into two groups with 547 individuals in each. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version number 1.0, 26th February 2021. Recruitment status: Not yet recruiting, set to start April 2021 and end April 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04813770 , 24th March 2021. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.