Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake: an online three-wave survey study of US adults.

BACKGROUND: To effectively promote vaccine uptake, it is important to understand which people are most and least inclined to be vaccinated and why. In this study, we examined predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and reasons for non-vaccination. METHODS: We conducted an online English-language survey study in December-2020, January-2021, and March-2021. A total of 930 US respondents completed all surveys. Multiple logistic regression models were run to test whether the early vaccine eligibility, demographic factors, and psychological factors predict getting at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccination in January-2021 and in March-2021. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents who received ≥ 1-dose of a COVID-19 vaccine increased from 18% (January) to 67% (March). Older age predicted vaccine uptake in January (OR = 2.02[95%CI = 1.14-3.78], p < .001) and March (10.92[6.76-18.05], p < .001). In January, additional predictors were higher numeracy (1.48[1.20-1.86], p < .001), COVID-19 risk perceptions (1.35[1.03-1.78], p = .029), and believing it is important adults get the COVID-19 vaccine (1.66[1.05-2.66], p = .033). In March, additional predictors of uptake were believing it is important adults get the COVID-19 vaccine (1.63[1.15-2.34], p = .006), prior COVID-19 vaccine intentions (1.37[1.10-1.72], p = .006), and belief in science (0.84[0.72-0.99], p = .041). Concerns about side effects and the development process were the most common reasons for non-vaccination. Unvaccinated respondents with no interest in getting a COVID-19 vaccine were younger (0.27[0.09-0.77], p = .016), held negative views about COVID-19 vaccines for adults (0.15[0.08-0.26], p < .001), had lower trust in healthcare (0.59[0.36-0.95], p = .032), and preferred to watch and wait in clinically ambiguous medical situations (0.66[0.48-0.89], p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence that attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccines were important predictors of uptake provides validation for studies using these measures and reinforces the need to develop strategies for addressing safety and development concerns which remain at the forefront of vaccine hesitancy.

Veterans and Nonveterans Coping With Stress During 4 Months of COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Identifying how people have been coping with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic allows us to anticipate how the population may react to similar stressors over time. In this study, we assessed patterns of coping styles among veterans and nonveterans, and stability and change in these strategies at 3 time points during the pandemic. METHODS: Using an online survey platform, we circulated a questionnaire at 3 time points during the period when COVID-19 vaccines became widely available (December 2-27, 2020; January 21-February 6, 2021; and March 8-23, 2021). The questionnaire asked participants about their extent of use of 11 coping strategies, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 2,085 participants (50.8% veterans) completed the questionnaire at 1 or more time points and 930 participants (62.8% veterans) completed it at all 3 time points. Cluster analysis identified 3 distinct coping styles: adaptive, distressed, and disengaged. Compared with nonveterans, veterans more commonly had adaptive and disengaged coping styles, and less commonly had a distressed coping style. The majority of the cohort (71.3%) changed coping style at least once during the study period. Participants who used the same coping style across all 3 time points reported lower levels of anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate a need to better understand the dynamic nature of coping with pandemic-level stressors across time. We did not find patterns of change in coping styles, but our findings point to potential advantages of stability in coping style. It is possible that less adaptive styles that are more stable may be advantageous for mental health. This research has implications for supporting patients dealing with stress in family medicine.

Aerosol containment device design considerations and performance evaluation metrics.

BACKGROUND: Spurred by the Coronavirus infectious disease 2019 pandemic, aerosol containment devices (ACDs) were developed to capture infectious respiratory aerosols generated by patients at their source. Prior reviews indicated that such devices had low evidence of effectiveness, but did not address how ACDs should be evaluated, how well they should perform, nor have clearly defined performance standards. Towards developing design criteria for ACDs, two questions were posed: 1) What characteristics have guided the design of ACDs? 2) How have these characteristics been evaluated? METHODS: A scoping review was performed consistent with PRISMA guidelines. Data were extracted with respect to general study information, intended use of the device, device design characteristics and evaluation. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles were included. Evaluation was most commonly performed with respect to device aerosol containment (n = 31, 61%), with only 5 (9%), 3 (6%) and 8 (15%) formally assessing providing experience, patient experience and procedure impact, respectively. Nearly all of the studies that explored provider experience and procedure impact studied intubation. Few studies provided a priori performance criteria for any evaluation metric, or referenced any external guidelines by which to bench mark performance. CONCLUSION: With respect to aerosol containment, ACDs should reduce exposure among HCP with the device compared with the absence of the device, and provide ≥90% reduction in respirable aerosols, equivalent in performance to N95 filtering facepiece respirators, if the goal is to reduce reliance on personal protective equipment. The ACD should not increase awkward or uncomfortable postures, or adversely impact biomechanics of the procedure itself as this could have implications for procedure outcomes. A variety of standardized instruments exist to assess the experience of patients and healthcare personnel. Integration of ACDs into routine clinical practice requires rigorous studies of aerosol containment and the user experience.

Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations.

OBJECTIVE: We present examples of laboratory and remote studies, with a focus on studies appropriate for medical device design and evaluation. From this review and description of extant options for remote testing, we provide methods and tools to achieve research goals remotely. BACKGROUND: The FDA mandates human factors evaluation of medical devices. Studies show similarities and differences in results collected in laboratories compared to data collected remotely in non-laboratory settings. Remote studies show promise, though many of these are behavioral studies related to cognitive or experimental psychology. Remote usability studies are rare but increasing, as technologies allow for synchronous and asynchronous data collection. METHOD: We reviewed methods of remote evaluation of medical devices, from testing labels and instruction to usability testing and simulated use. Each method was coded for the attributes (e.g., supported media) that need consideration in usability studies. RESULTS: We present examples of how published usability studies of medical devices could be moved to remote data collection. We also present novel systems for creating such tests, such as the use of 3D printed or virtual prototypes. Finally, we advise on targeted participant recruitment. CONCLUSION: Remote testing will bring opportunities and challenges to the field of medical device testing. Current methods are adequate for most purposes, excepting the validation of Class III devices. APPLICATION: The tools we provide enable the remote evaluation of medical devices. Evaluations have specific research goals, and our framework of attributes helps to select or combine tools for valid testing of medical devices.

Evaluation of a Redesigned Personal Protective Equipment Gown.

BACKGROUND: In healthcare, the goal of personal protective equipment (PPE) is to protect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients from body fluids and infectious organisms via contact, droplet, or airborne transmission. The critical importance of using PPE properly is highlighted by 2 potentially fatal viral infections, severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus and Ebola virus, where HCP became infected while caring for patients due to errors in the use of PPE. However, PPE in dealing with less dangerous, but highly infectious organisms is important as well. This work proposes a framework to test and evaluate PPE with a focus on gown design. METHODS: An observational study identified issues with potential for contamination related to gown use. After redesigning the existing gown, a high-fidelity patient simulator study with 40 HCP as participants evaluated the gown redesign using 2 commonly performed tasks. Variables of interest were nonadherence to procedural standards, use problems with the gown during task performance, and usability and cognitive task load ratings of the standard and redesigned gowns. RESULTS: While no differences were found in terms of nonadherence and use problems between the current and the redesigned gown, differences in usability and task load ratings suggested that the redesigned gown is perceived more favorably by HCP. CONCLUSIONS: This work proposes a framework to guide the evaluation of PPE. The results suggest that the current design of the PPE gown can be improved in usability and user satisfaction. Although our data did not find an increase in adherence to protocol when using the redesigned gown, it is likely that higher usability and lower task load could result in higher adherence over longer periods of use.

Understanding Workflow and Personal Protective Equipment Challenges Across Different Healthcare Personnel Roles.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals use standard and transmission-based precautions, including personal protective equipment (PPE), to prevent the spread of infectious organisms. However, little attention has been paid to the potentially unique challenges of various healthcare personnel (HCP) in following precaution practices. METHODS: From September through December 2016, 5 physicians, 5 nurses, and 4 physical therapists were shadowed for 1 hour 30 minutes to 3 hours 15 minutes at an academic medical center. Observers documented activities using unstructured field notes. Focus groups were conducted to better understand HCP perspectives about precautions and PPE-related challenges. Data were analyzed by comparing workflow and challenges (observed and stated) in precaution practices across HCP roles. RESULTS: Precaution patients were interspersed throughout physician rounds, which covered a broad geographic range throughout the hospital. Patient encounters were generally brief, and appropriate use of gowns and cleaning of personal stethoscopes varied among observed physicians. Nurses were unit based and frequently entered/exited rooms. Frustration with donning/doffing was especially apparent when needing supplies while in a precaution room, which nurses acknowledged was a time when practice lapses could occur. The observed physical therapists worked in one geographic location, spent extended periods of time with patients, and noted that given their close physical contact with patients, gowns do not fully protect them. CONCLUSIONS: Movement patterns, time with patients, care activities, and equipment use varied across HCP, leading to a diverse set of challenges in following precaution practices and PPE use. Attention to these differences among HCP is important for understanding and developing effective strategies to prevent the potential spread of infectious organisms.

Human Factors Engineering Contributions to Infection Prevention and Control.

OBJECTIVE: This article provides a review of areas that present significant challenges in infection prevention and control and describes human factors engineering (HFE) approaches that have been applied successfully to these areas. In addition, implications and recommendations for HFE use in future research are discussed. BACKGROUND: Infection prevention and control aims to prevent patients and health care personnel from acquiring preventable infections in healthcare. Effective infection control practices of healthcare-associated infections have recently become even more critical with the emergence of life-threatening infections. HFE could benefit infection prevention and control in addressing older and more recent challenges, but uptake has been limited. METHOD/RESULTS: This literature review is an integration and synthesis of recently published research that describes HFE-based approaches in infection prevention and control to address the challenges for three specific topics. The results of the review suggests that HFE is in a position to support work in infection prevention and control and improve overall healthcare safety. CONCLUSION: HFE provides conceptual frameworks and methods that have significant potential to improve infection prevention and control. APPLICATION: The work reviewed can provide potential solutions for current infection prevention and control challenges by applying HFE based recommendations.

Interruptions and Delivery of Care in the Intensive Care Unit.

OBJECTIVE: This study samples interruption frequency in intensive care unit (ICU) settings to assess the relationship between interruptions and common patient hazards. BACKGROUND: Task interruptions are accident contributors in numerous industries. Recently, studies on health care interruptions and their impact on patient hazards have received attention. METHOD: Seven ICUs in four hospitals participated in a 24-month study. Experienced ICU nurses directly observed nursing tasks, interruptions, and patient hazards (delays in care, breaks in device task protocols, and patient safety hazards). RESULTS: During 1,148 hours of observation, 175 nurses performed 74,733 nursing tasks. Interruptions occurred at a rate of 4.95 per hour, and 8.4% of tasks were interrupted. Interruptions originated mostly from humans (65.9%), alarms (24.1%), and others (10%). A total of 774 patient hazards were observed, with a hazard occurring on average every 89 minutes. Relative to noninterrupted tasks, device alarm interrupted nonstructured tasks were associated with increased rates of delays in care and safety hazards (rate ratio [RR] = 3.19). In contrast, rate of delays in care and safety hazards did not increase during human interrupted tasks (RR = 1.13). Rates of protocol nonadherence varied by device type and were highest during artificial airway, medication administration, chest tube, and supplemental oxygen management. CONCLUSION: Interruptions in the ICU are frequent and contribute to patient hazards, especially when caused by device alarms during nonstructured tasks. Nonadherence to protocols is common and contributed to patient hazards. APPLICATION: The findings suggest a need for improvement in task and device design to reduce patient hazards.

Checking the lists: A systematic review of electronic checklist use in health care.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a literature search to examine the effects and experiences surrounding the transition from paper to electronic checklists in healthcare settings. We explore the types of electronic checklists being used in health care, how and where they were evaluated and seek to identify the successes and failures of using electronic checklists in healthcare, including use of checklists to ensure completeness of documentation in the electronic medical record. BACKGROUND: Formalized checklist use as a memory and decision aid in aviation has resulted in significant increases in safety in that domain. Checklists have also been successfully introduced to reduce errors in some areas of healthcare; however, in some contexts checklists failed to provide some of the expected benefits. Adapting and integrating checklists electronically into the healthcare workflow provides opportunities and challenges that need to be better understood to make checklist adoption a success in health care. METHOD: We conducted a literature search of the English language literature in MEDLINE using PubMed for peer-reviewed literature of implementation and use of electronic or computerized checklists related to clinical or healthcare use. We reviewed the studies and included in this review those papers that discussed in depth the development process and that conducted controlled studies to assess the effectiveness of checklists and the evaluation of their acceptance in the clinical context. RESULTS: The literature search using the keywords electronic checklist OR computerized checklist returned a total of 23 peer-reviewed papers. Out of these 15 were included in the review, with 8 excluded because they did not evaluate checklist use for patient care. APPLICATION: More rigorous application of known principles and methods from Human Computer Interaction research and the behavioral sciences can provide a clearer, more comprehensive understanding of the conditions that affect the development and use of checklists.

Translation of Contextual Control Model to chronic disease management: A paradigm to guide design of cognitive support systems.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) continue to be criticized for providing poor cognitive support. Defining cognitive support has lacked theoretical foundation. We developed a measurement model of cognitive support based on the Contextual Control Model (COCOM), which describes control characteristics of an "orderly" joint system and proposes 4 levels of control: scrambled, opportunistic, tactical, and strategic. METHODS: 35 clinicians (5 centers) were interviewed pre and post outpatient clinical visits and audiotaped during the visit. Behaviors pertaining to hypertension management were systematically mapped to the COCOM control characteristics of: (1) time horizon, (2) uncertainty assessment, (3) consideration of multiple goals, (4) causal model described, and (5) explicitness of plan. Each encounter was classified for overall mode of control. Visits with deviation versus no deviation from hypertension goals were compared. RESULTS: Reviewer agreement was high. Control characteristics differed significantly between deviation groups (Wilcox rank sum p<.01). K-means cluster analysis of control characteristics, stratified by deviation were distinct, with higher goal deviations associated with more control characteristics. CONCLUSION: The COCOM control characteristics appear to be areas of potential yield for improved user-experience design.

Warning Triggers in Environmental Hazards: Who Should Be Warned to Do What and When?

Determining the most effective public warnings to issue during a hazardous environmental event is a complex problem. Three primary questions need to be answered: Who should take protective action? What is the best action? and When should this action be initiated? Warning triggers provide a proactive means for emergency managers to simultaneously answer these questions by recommending that a target group take a specified protective action if a preset environmental trigger condition occurs (e.g., warn a community to evacuate if a wildfire crosses a proximal ridgeline). Triggers are used to warn the public across a wide variety of environmental hazards, and an improved understanding of their nature and role promises to: (1) advance protective action theory by unifying the natural, built, and social themes in hazards research into one framework, (2) reveal important information about emergency managers' risk perception, situational awareness, and threat assessment regarding threat behavior and public response, and (3) advance spatiotemporal models for representing the geography and timing of disaster warning and response (i.e., a coupled natural-built-social system). We provide an overview and research agenda designed to advance our understanding and modeling of warning triggers.

Disinfection of central venous access device needleless connectors: A human factors analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) prevention guidelines recommend the use of an antiseptic scrub to disinfect needleless connectors before device access. Guideline noncompliance may render disinfection ineffective. The goal of this study was to observe needleless-connector disinfection practices and to identify perceived facilitators and barriers to best practices of needleless-connector access. METHODS: A human factors mixed-methods study involving nursing focus groups of perceived barriers and facilitators and clinical observations of compliance with instructions and protocols for use of 3.15% chlorhexidine gluconate/70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG/IPA) and 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) antisepsis products for central venous access device (CVAD) needleless-connector disinfection was conducted in intensive care units (ICUs) at 2 academic medical centers. RESULTS: Access to the antiseptic product and lesser workload were identified as best-practice facilitators. Barriers were the time required per needleless-connector access and knowledge deficits. Of the 48 observed access events, 77% resulted in needleless-connector disinfection. The observed mean needleless-connector scrubbing times when using IPA were substantially below the recommended time. Drying time after product use was negligible. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of access to the disinfection product, emergency situations, and high workload were barriers to needleless-connector disinfection. Observed scrubbing and drying times were shorter than recommended, especially for IPA wipes. These needleless-connector disinfection deficits may increase the risk of CLABSI. Ongoing education and periodic competency evaluation of needleless-connector disinfection, improvement of supply management, and staffing workload are required to imbed and sustain best practices. Further study involving a larger sample size in diverse patient populations is warranted.

Impact of prior COVID-19 infection on perceptions about the benefit and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

In this online survey of 1,733 US adults in December 2021, respondents believed COVID-19 vaccines are less beneficial and less safe for someone who had already had COVID-19. Those who experienced COVID-19 after being vaccinated believed that the vaccines are less beneficial and less safe than those who had not. Findings highlight the need to better communicate evolving evidence of COVID-19 vaccine benefit and safety and to tailor communications to peoples' COVID-19 history and vaccination status.

Demographic, structural, and psychological predictors of risk-increasing and mask wearing behaviors among US adults between December 2020-March 2021.

OBJECTIVES: To assess demographic, structural, and psychological predictors of risk-increasing and risk-decreasing behaviors METHODS: This study used data from an online longitudinal, three-wave COVID-19 survey (12/20-03/21) regarding the behaviors, attitudes, and experiences of US Veteran (n = 584) and non-Veteran (n = 346) adults. RESULTS: Inability to get groceries delivered emerged as the strongest predictor of more frequent risk-increasing behavior across all timepoints. Other consistent predictors of more frequent risk-increasing behavior and less frequent mask wearing included less worry about getting COVID-19, disbelief in science, belief in COVID-19 conspiracies, and negative perceptions of the state response. No demographic factor consistently predicted risk-increasing behavior or mask wearing, though different demographic predictors emerged for more frequent risk-increasing behaviors (e.g., lower health literacy) and mask-wearing (e.g., older age and urban residence) at certain timepoints. The most frequently endorsed reasons for having contact with others concerned health-related (food, medical care, and exercise) and social needs (seeing friends/family and boredom). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight key individual-level determinants of risk-increasing behaviors and mask wearing which encompass demographic, structural, and psychological factors. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings can support public health experts and health communicators promote engagement with risk-reducing behaviors and address key barriers to engaging in these behaviors.

Telehealth Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Veterans and Nonveterans: Web-Based Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, studies reported delays in health care usage due to safety concerns. Delays in care may result in increased morbidity and mortality from otherwise treatable conditions. Telehealth provides a safe alternative for patients to receive care when other circumstances make in-person care unavailable or unsafe, but information on patient experiences is limited. Understanding which people are more or less likely to use telehealth and their experiences can help tailor outreach efforts to maximize the impact of telehealth. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the characteristics of telehealth users and nonusers and their reported experiences among veteran and nonveteran respondents. METHODS: A nationwide web-based survey of current behaviors and health care experiences was conducted in December 2020-March 2021. The survey consisted of 3 waves, and the first wave is assessed here. Respondents included US adults participating in Qualtrics web-based panels. Primary outcomes were self-reported telehealth use and number of telehealth visits. The analysis used a 2-part regression model examining the association between telehealth use and the number of visits with respondent characteristics. RESULTS: There were 2085 participants in the first wave, and 898 (43.1%) reported using telehealth since the pandemic began. Most veterans who used telehealth reported much or somewhat preferring an in-person visit (336/474, 70.9%), while slightly less than half of nonveterans (189/424, 44.6%) reported this preference. While there was no significant difference between veteran and nonveteran likelihood of using telehealth (odds ratio [OR] 1.33, 95% CI 0.97-1.82), veterans were likely to have more visits when they did use it (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.07-2.07). Individuals were less likely to use telehealth and reported fewer visits if they were 55 years and older (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.62 for ages 55-64 years; IRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.66) or lived in a small city (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.92; IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.99). Receiving health care partly or primarily at the Veterans Health Administration (VA) was associated with telehealth use (primarily VA: OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.20-4.81; equal mix: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.40-3.39) and more telehealth visits (primarily VA: IRR 1.5, 95% CI 1.10-2.04; equal mix: IRR 1.57, 95% CI 1.11-2.24). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth will likely continue to be an important source of health care for patients, especially following situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. Some groups who may benefit from telehealth are still underserved. Telehealth services and outreach should be improved to provide accessible care for all.

Communications to Promote Interest and Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines.

PURPOSE: Communicating about COVID-19 vaccine side effects and efficacy is crucial for promoting transparency and informed decision-making, but there is limited evidence on how to do so effectively. DESIGN: A within-subjects experiment. SETTING: Online survey from January 21 to February 6, 2021. SUBJECTS: 596 US Veterans and 447 non-Veterans. INTERVENTION: 5 messages about COVID-19 vaccine side effects and 4 messages about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. MEASURES: COVID-19 vaccine interest (1 = "I definitely do NOT want the vaccine" to 7 = "I definitely WANT the vaccine" with the midpoint 4 = "Unsure"). Confidence about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (1= "Not at all confident," 2 = "Slightly confident," 3 = "Somewhat confident," 4 = "Moderately confident," 5 = "Extremely confident"). RESULTS: Compared to providing information about side effects alone (M = 5.62 [1.87]), messages with additional information on the benefits of vaccination (M = 5.77 [1.82], P < .001, dz = .25), reframing the likelihood of side effects (M = 5.74 [1.84], P < .001, dz = .23), and emphasizing that post-vaccine symptoms indicate the vaccine is working (M = 5.72 [1.84], P < .001, dz = .17) increased vaccine interest. Compared to a vaccine efficacy message containing verbal uncertainty and an efficacy range (M = 3.97 [1.25]), messages conveying verbal certainty with an efficacy range (M = 4.00 [1.24], P = .042, dz=.08), verbal uncertainty focused on the upper efficacy limit (M = 4.03 [1.26], P < .001, dz = .13), and communicating the point estimate with certainty (M = 4.02 [1.25], P < .001, dz = .11) increased confidence. Overall, Veteran respondents were more interested (MVeterans = 5.87 [1.72] vs MNonVeterans = 5.45 [2.00], P < .001, d = .22) and confident (MVeterans = 4.13 [1.19] vs MNonVeterans = 3.84 [1.32], P < .001, d = .23) about COVID-19 vaccines than non-Veterans. CONCLUSIONS: These strategies can be implemented in large-scale communications (e.g., webpages, social media, and leaflets/posters) and can help guide healthcare professionals when discussing vaccinations in clinics to promote interest and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.

A Novel Application of Risk-Risk Tradeoffs in Occupational Health: Nurses' Occupational Asthma and Infection Risk Perceptions Related to Cleaning and Disinfection during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Nurses face the risk of new onset occupational asthma (OA) due to exposures to cleaning and disinfection (C&D) agents used to prevent infections in healthcare facilities. The objective of this study was to measure nurses' preferences when presented with simultaneous OA and respiratory viral infection (e.g., COVID-19) risks related to increased/decreased C&D activities. METHODS: Nurses working in healthcare for ≥1 year and without physician-diagnosed asthma were recruited for an online anonymous survey, including four risk-risk tradeoff scenarios between OA and respiratory infection with subsequent recovery (Infect and Recovery) or subsequent death (Infect and Death). Nurses were presented with baseline risks at hypothetical "Hospital 1", and were asked to choose Hospital 2 (increased OA risk to maintain infection risk), Hospital 3 (increased infection risk to maintain OA risk), or indicate that they were equally happy. RESULTS: Over 70% of nurses were willing to increase infection risk to maintain baseline OA risk if they were confident they would recover from the infection. However, even when the risk of infection leading to death was much lower than OA, most nurses were not willing to accept a larger (but still small) risk of death to avoid doubling their OA risk. Age, work experience, and ever having contracted or knowing anyone who has contracted a respiratory viral infection at work influenced choices. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the novel application of a risk-risk tradeoff framework to address an occupational health issue. However, more data are needed to test the generalizability of the risk preferences found in this specific risk-risk tradeoff context.

Communicating about COVID-19 vaccine development and safety.

PURPOSE: Beliefs that the risks from a COVID-19 vaccine outweigh the risks from getting COVID-19 and concerns that the vaccine development process was rushed and lacking rigor have been identified as important drivers of hesitancy and refusal to get a COVID-19 vaccine. We tested whether messages designed to address these beliefs and concerns might promote intentions to get a COVID-19 vaccine. METHOD: We conducted an online survey fielded between March 8-23, 2021 with US Veteran (n = 688) and non-Veteran (n = 387) respondents. In a between-subjects experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to a control group (with no message) or to read one of two intervention messages: 1. a fact-box styled message comparing the risks of getting COVID-19 compared to the vaccine, and 2. a timeline styled message describing the development process of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. RESULTS: Most respondents (60%) wanted a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 17% expressed hesitancy and 23% did not want to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The fact-box styled message and the timeline message did not significantly improve vaccination intentions, F(2,358) = 0.86, p = .425, [Formula: see text] = .005, or reduce the time respondents wanted to wait before getting vaccinated, F(2,306) = 0.79, p = .453, [Formula: see text] = .005, compared to no messages. DISCUSSION: In this experimental study, we did not find that providing messages about vaccine risks and the development process had an impact on respondents' vaccine intentions. Further research is needed to identify how to effectively address concerns about the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines and the development process and to understand additional factors that influence vaccine intentions.

Misrepresentation and Nonadherence Regarding COVID-19 Public Health Measures.

Importance: The effectiveness of public health measures implemented to mitigate the spread and impact of SARS-CoV-2 relies heavily on honesty and adherence from the general public. Objective: To examine the frequency of, reasons for, and factors associated with misrepresentation and nonadherence regarding COVID-19 public health measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study recruited a national, nonprobability sample of US adults to participate in an online survey using Qualtrics online panels (participation rate, 1811 of 2260 [80.1%]) from December 8 to 23, 2021. The survey contained screening questions to allow for a targeted sample of one-third who had had COVID-19, one-third who had not had COVID-19 and were vaccinated, and one-third who had not had COVID-19 and were unvaccinated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey assessed 9 different types of misrepresentation and nonadherence related to COVID-19 public health measures and the reasons underlying such behaviors. Additional questions measured COVID-19-related beliefs and behaviors and demographic characteristics. Results: The final sample included 1733 participants. The mean (SD) participant age was 41 (15) years and the sample predominantly identified as female (1143 of 1732 [66.0%]) and non-Hispanic White (1151 of 1733 [66.4%]). Seven hundred twenty-one participants (41.6%) reported misrepresentation and/or nonadherence in at least 1 of the 9 items; telling someone they were with or about to be with in person that they were taking more COVID-19 preventive measures than they actually were (420 of 1726 [24.3%]) and breaking quarantine rules (190 of 845 [22.5%]) were the most common manifestations. The most commonly endorsed reasons included wanting life to feel normal and wanting to exercise personal freedom. All age groups younger than 60 years (eg, odds ratio for those aged 18-29 years, 4.87 [95% CI, 3.27-7.34]) and those who had greater distrust in science (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.05-1.23]) had significantly higher odds of misrepresentation and/or nonadherence for at least 1 of the 9 items. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US adults, nearly half of participants reported misrepresentation and/or nonadherence regarding public health measures against COVID-19. Future work is needed to examine strategies for communicating the consequences of misrepresentation and nonadherence and to address contributing factors.

Informing the design of hemodynamic monitoring displays.

In the ICU, an extensive array of variables from the hemodynamic monitoring display is routinely analyzed. However, the development of new display technologies is proceeding without adequate study of the monitoring tasks and behaviors of a primary user group--critical-care nurses. Semistructured interviews focusing on the cognitive aspects of the hemodynamic monitoring task were conducted with 14 critical-care nurses. A systematic content analysis of qualitative data identified cognitive tasks that had applicability to the design of monitoring displays. The cognitive tasks of hemodynamic monitoring were (1) selective data acquisition, (2) applying meaning to the variables and understanding relationships between parameters, (3) controlling hemodynamics by titrating medications and intravenous fluids, and (4) monitoring complex trends of multiple interacting variables and patient response to interventions. Recommendations include designing the monitoring display to match the mental constructs and cognitive tasks of the user by applying conceptual meaning to the variables, highlighting relationships between variables, and presenting a "big picture" view of the patient's condition. Monitoring displays must also present integrated trends that illustrate the dynamic relationship between interventions and patient response.