Using cluster analysis to explore COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy by levels of medical mistrust in fully vaccinated US adults.

BACKGROUND: Underlying causes of vaccine hesitancy could significantly affect successful uptake of the SARS-CoV2 vaccine booster doses during new waves of COVID-19. Booster rates among US adults are far below what is needed for immunity, but little is known about booster hesitancy among fully vaccinated adults and whether medical mistrust exacerbates barriers to uptake. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was completed among 119 adults in Philadelphia, PA who reported having received the primary SARS-CoV2 vaccine series but not a booster dose. Using the LaVeist Medical Mistrust (MM) Index, a k-means cluster analysis showed two clusters (Low MM, High MM) and differences in attitudes and perceptions about COVID-19 booster vaccines were assessed using F-tests. RESULTS: Respondents were 62% Black and female; mean age was 41; 46% reported earning less than $25,000 and 53% had a high school education or less. Overall intention to get boosted was low (mean 3.3 on 0-10 scale). Differences in COVID-19 booster perceptions between those with High (n = 56) vs. Low (n = 59) MM were found, independent of any demographic differences. Most statements (7/10) related to reasons to not be boosted were significant, with those with High MM indicating more concern about feeling sick from the vaccine (F=-3.91, p≤ .001), beliefs that boosters are ineffective for vaccinated people (F= -3.46, p≤ .001), and long-term side effect worries (F=-4.34, p≤ .001). Those with High MM were also more concerned about the adverse effects of the vaccine (F=-2.48, p=.02), but were more likely to trust getting information from doctors or healthcare providers (F= -2.25, p=.03). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that medical mistrust is an important independent construct when understanding current COVID-19 booster hesitancy. While much work has looked at demographic differences to explain vaccine hesitancy, these results suggest that further research into understanding and addressing medical mistrust could be important for implementing interventions to increase booster rates.

Oncologists' perceptions of tumor genomic profiling and barriers to communicating secondary hereditary risks to African American cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) identifies targets for precision cancer treatments, but also secondary hereditary risks. Oncologists are poorly trained to communicate the results of TGP, especially among patients with lower health literacy, poorer genetics knowledge, and higher mistrust. African American (AA) patients are especially vulnerable to poor understanding due to significant cancer disparities and lower uptake of TGP. The goal of this research is to inform the development of an internet-based brief educational support for oncologists to prepare them to provide better decisional support related to TGP for their AA cancer patients. METHODS: This mixed-methods study used semi-structured interviews of oncologists to inform development of an online survey with a convenience sample of US-based oncologists (n = 50) to assess perceptions of the challenges of TGP and communicating results to AA patients. RESULTS: Most interviewed oncologists felt it was important to consider racial/cultural differences when communicating about hereditary risks. Cost, family dynamics, discrimination concerns, and medical mistrust were identified as particularly salient. Survey respondents' views related to AAs and perceptions of TGP were strongly associated with years since completing training, with recent graduates expressing stronger agreement with statements identifying barriers/disadvantages to TGP for AA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists who had more recently completed training expressed more negative perceptions of TGP and more perceived challenges in communicating about TGP with their AA patients. Focused training for oncologists that addresses barriers specific to AAs may be helpful in supporting improved communication about TGP and improved decisional support for AA patients with cancer considering TGP to evaluate their tumors.

Understanding perceptions of tumor genomic profile testing in Black/African American cancer patients in a qualitative study: the role of medical mistrust, provider communication, and family support.

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) examines genes and somatic mutations specific to a patient's tumor to identify targets for cancer treatments but can also uncover secondary hereditary (germline) mutations. Most patients are unprepared to make complex decisions related to this information. Black/African American (AA) cancer patients are especially at risk because of lower health literacy, higher levels of medical mistrust, and lower awareness and knowledge of genetic testing. But little is known about their TGP attitudes or preferences. Five in-person focus groups were conducted with Black/AA cancer patients (N = 33) from an NCI-designated cancer center and an affiliated oncology unit in an urban safety-net hospital located in Philadelphia. Focus groups explored participants' understanding of TGP, cultural beliefs about genetics, medical mistrust, and how these perceptions informed decision-making. Participants were mostly female (81.8%), and one-third had some college education; mean age was 57 with a SD of 11.35. Of patients, 33.3% reported never having heard of TGP, and 48.5% were not aware of having had TGP as part of their cancer treatment. Qualitative analysis was guided by the principles of applied thematic analysis and yielded five themes: (1) mistrust of medical institutions spurring independent health-information seeking; (2) genetic testing results as both empowering and overwhelming; (3) how provider-patient communication can obviate medical mistrust; (4) how unsupportive patient-family communication undermines interest in secondary-hereditary risk communication; and (5) importance of developing centralized patient support systems outside of treatment decisions. Results improve understanding of how Black/AA patients perceive of TGP and how interventions can be developed to assist with making informed decisions about secondary hereditary results.

Impact of reduced restrictions on buprenorphine prescribing during COVID-19 among patients in a community-based treatment program.

Background: Medications such as buprenorphine are considered the gold standard for the treatment of opioid use disorders. This study aimed to determine whether less restrictive buprenorphine prescribing practices during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted retention in and adherence to buprenorphine among patients accessing treatment from 2018-2020 at a community-based syringe services program. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we compared retention in treatment before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, with relaxed restrictions acting as the intervention in a natural experiment, we conducted a sub-analysis of "continuity participants" who accessed treatment services both before and during the COVID-19 period. Records of 418 historical control patients treated with buprenorphine before COVID-19 were compared to 88 patients enrolled during COVID-19 (n=43 remote telemedicine and n=45 remote provider with patient on-site). Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to assess risk factors for treatment discontinuation. The sub-analysis used proportion of days covered (PDC) differences before and during COVID-19 (n=164) for a paired analysis in a nonparametric bootstrap test. Results: The risk of discontinuation was 71% lower in those accessing remote telemedicine during COVID-19 (HR=0.29; CI: 0.18, 0.47) and 51% lower in those accessing their remote provider onsite during COVID-19 (HR=0.49; CI:0.31, 0.77), compared to the historical control group. The average PDC did not significantly differ before and during COVID-19 (difference=2.4%; CI:-0.6%, 5.3%). Conclusions: The risk of discontinuing treatment was lower in both COVID-19 treatment groups compared to historical controls. Less restrictive buprenorphine prescribing guidelines during COVID-19 led to improved retention in care over 6-months.