RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) are hospitalized in growing numbers. Stigma is pervasive among their hospital providers, and SUD management during medical admissions is often inadequate. However, little is known about how these patients perceive their care quality. In particular, few studies have explored their positive care perceptions or recommendations for improvement. OBJECTIVE: To explore perspectives on positive aspects, negative aspects, and consequences of care, as well as recommendations for improvement among hospitalized patients with SUDs. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted semi-structured, in-depth bedside interviews (n = 15) with patients who have been diagnosed with a SUD and were admitted to medical or surgical floors of an urban academic medical center. APPROACH: Interviews explored patients' hospital experiences and recommendations for improvement. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and imported into NVivo software. Two reviewers independently coded the transcripts using interpretative phenomenological analysis and inductive thematic analysis according to grounded theory, and recurring themes were identified from the data. Patients' demographic and clinical data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. KEY RESULTS: Perceived clinical and emotional proficiency were the most important components of positive experiences, whereas perceived bias and stigmatized attitudes, clinical improficiency, and inhumane treatment were characteristic of negative experiences. Such care components were most consequential for patients' emotional well-being, trust, and care quality. Recommendations for improving care included specific suggestions for initiating and promoting continued recovery, educating, and partnering in compassionate care. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with SUDs often experience lower quality and less compassionate care linked to pervasive stigma and poor outcomes. Our study highlights under-recognized perspectives from this patient population, including socioemotional consequences of care and recommendations grounded in lived experiences. By striving to advance our care in accordance with patients' viewpoints, we can turn hospitalizations into opportunities for engagement and promoting recovery.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: For some vaccine-preventable diseases, the immunologic response to vaccination is altered by a pregnant state. The effect of pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize the peak and longitudinal anti-S immunoglobulin G, immunoglobulin M, and immunoglobulin A responses to messenger RNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnant persons and compare them with those in nonpregnant, reproductive-aged persons. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 2 parallel prospective cohort studies among pregnant and nonpregnant persons who received SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccinations. Blood was collected at the time of first and second vaccine doses, 2 weeks post second dosage, and with serial longitudinal follow-up up to 41.7 weeks post vaccination initiation. Anti-S immunoglobulin M, immunoglobulin G, and immunoglobulin A were analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. We excluded those with previous evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by history or presence of antinucleocapsid antibodies. In addition, for this study, we did not include individuals who received a third or booster vaccine dosage during the study period. We also excluded pregnant persons who were not fully vaccinated (14 days post receipt of the second vaccine dosage) by time of delivery and nonpregnant persons who became pregnant through the course of the study. We studied the effect of gestational age at vaccination on the anti-S response using Spearman correlation. We compared the peak anti-S antibody responses between pregnant and nonpregnant persons using a Mann-Whitney U test. We visualized and studied the longitudinal anti-S antibody response using locally weighted scatterplot smoothing, Mann-Whitney U test, and mixed analysis of variance test. RESULTS: Data from 53 pregnant and 21 nonpregnant persons were included in this analysis. The median (interquartile range) age of the pregnant and nonpregnant participants was 35.0 (33.3-37.8) years and 36.0 (33.0-41.0) years, respectively. Six (11.3%) participants initiated vaccination in the first trimester, 23 (43.3%) in the second trimester, and 24 (45.3%) in the third trimester, with a median gestational age at delivery of 39.6 (39.0-40.0) weeks. The median (interquartile range) follow-up time from vaccine initiation to the last blood sample collected was 25.9 (11.9) weeks and 28.9 (12.9) weeks in the pregnant and nonpregnant cohort, respectively. Among pregnant persons, anti-S immunoglobulin G, immunoglobulin A, and immunoglobulin M responses were not associated with gestational age at vaccine initiation (all P>.05). The anti-S immunoglobulin G response at 2 weeks post second dosage was not statistically different between pregnant and nonpregnant persons (P>.05). However, the anti-S immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin A responses at 2 weeks post second dosage were significantly higher in nonpregnant persons (P<.001 for both). The anti-S immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin M levels 6 to 8 months after vaccine initiation fell to comparable proportions of the peak 2 weeks post second dosage antibody levels between pregnant and nonpregnant persons (immunoglobulin G P=.77; immunoglobulin M P=.51). In contrast, immunoglobulin A levels 6 to 8 months after vaccine initiation fell to statistically significantly higher proportions of peak 2 weeks post second dosage antibody levels in pregnant compared with nonpregnant persons (P=.002). Maternal anti-S immunoglobulin G levels were strongly correlated with umbilical cord anti-S immunoglobulin G levels (R=0.8, P<.001). CONCLUSION: The anti-S immunoglobulin A, immunoglobulin M, and immunoglobulin G response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy is independent of gestational age of vaccine initiation. Maintenance of the immunoglobulin G response is comparable between pregnant and nonpregnant persons. The differential peak response of immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin A and the differential decline of anti-S immunoglobulin A between pregnant and nonpregnant persons requires further investigation.