Psychosocial impacts, preventive behaviours, and concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic for pregnant and non-pregnant women: A matched analysis from the International iCARE Study.

BACKGROUND:  The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected physical and psychological health worldwide. Pregnant women were likely more vulnerable to mental health difficulties due to the significant social, psychological, and hormonal changes they experience. During the pandemic, higher rates of antenatal depression and anxiety were observed compared to pre-pandemic rates. Increased mental health symptoms in pregnancy have been associated with adverse outcomes for child development. Understanding pandemic-specific preventive behaviours (i.e., mask use, physical distancing) and concerns may also be linked to maternal psychological well-being. PURPOSE: To compare matched pregnant and non-pregnant women (N = 474) to assess COVID-19 psychosocial impacts, preventive behaviours, and concerns. METHODS: This study used a matched analysis of data collected by the International COVID-19 Awareness and Responses Evaluation (iCARE) Study. Participants were matched on several demographic factors and analyses were adjusted for chronic illness and psychiatric disorder. RESULTS: Linear regression analyses indicated that pregnant women did not significantly differ from matched non-pregnant women for psychosocial impacts (B = 0.11, SE = 0.08, p = 0.178). Those who reported a chronic illness (B=-0.19, SE = 0.09, p = 0.036) or a psychiatric disorder (B=-0.28, SE = 0.09, p = 0.003) were more likely to report more significant psychosocial impacts. Logistic regression analyses indicated that pregnant women were more likely to report staying at home rather than going to work (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.31-3.08, p = 0.002) and being concerned about being infected (OR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.05-2.46, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the need to consider interventions targeting women, with chronic illnesses or psychiatric disorders, as they are often the most vulnerable.

Asthma patients' and physicians' perspectives on the burden and management of asthma: Post-hoc analysis of APPaRENT 1 and 2 to assess predictors of treatment adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Patient adherence to maintenance medication is critical for improving clinical outcomes in asthma and is a recommended guiding factor for treatment strategy. Previously, the APPaRENT studies assessed patient and physician perspectives on asthma care; here, a post-hoc analysis aimed to identify patient factors associated with good adherence and treatment prescription patterns. METHODS: APPaRENT 1 and 2 were cross-sectional online surveys of 2866 adults with asthma and 1883 physicians across Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Italy, Mexico, and the Philippines in 2020-2021. Combined data assessed adherence to maintenance medication, treatment goals, use of asthma action plans, and physician treatment patterns and preferences. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations between patient characteristics and both treatment prescription (by physicians) and patient treatment adherence. RESULTS: Patient and physician assessments of treatment goals and adherence differed, as did reporting of short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) prescriptions alongside maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Older age and greater patient-reported severity and reliever use were associated with better adherence. Patient-reported prescription of SABA with MART was associated with household smoking, severe or poorly controlled asthma, and living in China or the Philippines. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed an important disconnect between patient and physician treatment goals and treatment adherence, suggesting that strategies for improving patient adherence to maintenance medication are needed, focusing on younger patients with milder disease. High reliever use despite good adherence may indicate poor disease control. Personalised care considering patient characteristics alongside physician training in motivational communication and shared decision-making could improve patient management and outcomes.

Training physicians in motivational communication: An integrated knowledge transfer study protocol.

OBJECTIVE: While behavior change counseling (BCC) targeting health risk behaviors has shown efficacy for improving patient health outcomes, barriers to knowledge translation have resulted in poor uptake among health care providers (HCPs). This article outlines the development of a new BCC training framework for HCPs, from inception to readiness for efficacy testing. It provides an example of integrated knowledge translation (iKT) used in alignment with the obesity-related behavioral intervention trials model. METHOD: (a) A modified Delphi process identified essential BCC skills for HCPs; (b) a survey assessed HCP attitudes and training needs; (c) an online competency assessment tool was developed using iKT mixed methods; (d) a training program was developed and refined using a logic model; and (e) the program was optimized using iterative rounds of participant feedback. A future proof-of-concept trial (f) will determine the program's readiness for full efficacy testing. RESULTS: A Delphi panel (n = 46) identified 11 core BCC competencies for HCPs, defining "motivational communication." The HCP survey (n = 80) showed willingness to devote 4 hr to introductory training in BCC. The Motivational Communication Competency Assessment Test (MC-CAT: an online, interactive evaluation tool) and a motivational communication training program (MOTIVATOR: accredited for continuing education by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada) were collaboratively developed with knowledge users. The optimization process (n = 11) provided key feedback, with minor changes being made to the program. CONCLUSIONS: In developing a new BCC framework, obstacles to BCC implementation were addressed through an iterative iKT process. This should improve eventual intervention uptake. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Comparison of parent-reported motivators of non-vaccination for children 5-11 years old in Australia and Canada: Results of the iCARE study.

BACKGROUND: Despite COVID-19 infection being less severe in children compared to adults, vaccination for children from the age of 6 months onwards is recommended in many countries to reduce symptom severity and prevent severe disease. However, vaccination against COVID-19 for children remains controversial and uptake has been low. AIMS: To assess and compare the rate of change of parent-reported COVID-19 vaccine uptake in children aged 5 to 11 years and motivators of vaccine acceptance and non-vaccination among parents/guardians in Canada and Australia. METHODS: As part of the iCARE study, two cross-sectional representative samples in Canada and Australia were collected between May 20 and September 12, 2022 (i.e., 5 and 9 months after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout for children 5-11 years) using online panels. Parents/guardians reported the vaccine status of their children and motivators for vaccine acceptance and non-vaccination. General linear models were used to estimate differences between countries in terms of vaccine uptake and motivators across time. RESULTS: Parent-reported vaccine uptake for children 5-11 years didn't increase over the study period (T1 = 87 %,T2 = 86 %; OR = 0.83; 95 %CI = 0.45-1.54) and was overall lower in Canada (60.8 %) compared to Australia (71.6 %)(OR = 0.56; 95 %CI = 0.33-0.96). In both countries the socioeconomic characteristics of parents who didn't vaccinate their children were similar and having information on either the short- or long-term side effects of the vaccine were important motivators. However, vaccine effectiveness was more important in Canada and trust in the company that developed the vaccine and a recommendation from the child's doctor were more important motivators in Australia. CONCLUSION: Parent-reported vaccine uptake for children 5-11 years plateaued early in the vaccine rollout. The main motivators for parents of unvaccinated children varied between the two countries but information on vaccine safety and effectiveness were common to both countries. Findings may inform future tailored vaccine communication efforts and pandemic planning in Australia and Canada to optimize vaccine uptake for primary school children.

A network meta-analysis of the association between patient traits and response to regular dosing with ICS plus short-acting ß2-agonist reliever or ICS/formoterol reliever only in mild asthma.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Mild asthma treatment recommendations include intermittent inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol dosing or regular ICS dosing with short-acting ß2-agonist reliever. Due to the heterogeneity of asthma, identification of traits associated with improved outcomes to specific treatments would be clinically beneficial. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of patient traits on treatment outcomes of regular ICS dosing compared with intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing, a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Searches identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with asthma aged ≥12 years, containing ≥1 regular ICS dosing or intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing treatment arm, reporting traits and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: The SLR identified 11 RCTs of mild asthma, of 14,516 patients. A total of 11 traits and 11 outcomes of interest were identified. Of these, a feasibility assessment indicated possible assessment of three traits (age, baseline lung function, smoking history) and two outcomes (exacerbation rate, change in lung function). The NMA found no significant association of any trait with any outcome with regular ICS dosing relative to intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing. Inconsistent reporting of traits and outcomes between RCTs limited analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic analysis of associations between patient traits and differential treatment outcomes in mild asthma. Although the traits analysed were not found to significantly interact with relative treatment response, inconsistent reporting from the RCTs prevented assessment of some of the most clinically relevant traits and outcomes, such as adherence. More consistent reporting of respiratory RCTs would provide more comparable data and aid future analyses.

Relational conflicts during COVID-19: Impact of loss and reduction of employment due to prevention measures and the influence of sex and stress (in the iCARE study).

This study explored the association between pandemic-related loss/reduction of employment, sex, COVID-19-related stress and relational conflicts. A sample of 5103 Canadians from the iCARE study were recruited through an online polling firm between October 29, 2020, and March 23, 2021. Logistic regressions revealed that participants with loss/reduction of employment were 3.6 times more likely to report increased relational conflicts compared to those with stable employment (OR = 3.60; 95% CIs = 3.03-4.26). There was a significant interaction between employment status and sex (x2 = 10.16; p < 0.005), where loss/reduction of employment was associated with more relational conflicts in males compared to females. There was a main effect of COVID-19-related stress levels on relational conflicts (increased stress vs no stress : OR = 9.54; 95% CIs = 6.70-13.60), but no interaction with loss/reduction of employment (x2 = 0.46, p = 0.50).