The CONFIDENT study protocol: a randomized controlled trial comparing two methods to increase long-term care worker confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and real-world effectiveness data for the COVID-19 vaccines have shown that they are the best defense in preventing severe illness and death throughout the pandemic. However, in the US, some groups remain more hesitant than others about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One important group is long-term care workers (LTCWs), especially because they risk infecting the vulnerable and clinically complex populations they serve. There is a lack of research about how best to increase vaccine confidence, especially in frontline LTCWs and healthcare staff. Our aims are to: (1) compare the impact of two interventions delivered online to enhanced usual practice on LTCW COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other pre-specified secondary outcomes, (2) determine if LTCWs' characteristics and other factors mediate and moderate the interventions' effect on study outcomes, and (3) explore the implementation characteristics, contexts, and processes needed to sustain a wider use of the interventions. METHODS: We will conduct a three-arm randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 2) trial, with randomization at the participant level. Arm 1 is a dialogue-based webinar intervention facilitated by a LTCW and a medical expert and guided by an evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine decision tool. Arm 2 is a curated social media web application intervention featuring interactive, dynamic content about COVID-19 and relevant vaccines. Arm 3 is enhanced usual practice, which directs participants to online public health information about COVID-19 vaccines. Participants will be recruited via online posts and advertisements, email invitations, and in-person visits to care settings. Trial data will be collected at four time points using online surveys. The primary outcome is COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Secondary outcomes include vaccine uptake, vaccine and booster intent for those unvaccinated, likelihood of recommending vaccination (both initial series and booster), feeling informed about the vaccines, identification of vaccine information and misinformation, and trust in COVID-19 vaccine information provided by different people and organizations. Exploration of intervention implementation will involve interviews with study participants and other stakeholders, an in-depth process evaluation, and testing during a subsequent sustainability phase. DISCUSSION: Study findings will contribute new knowledge about how to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and effective informational modalities for LTCWs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05168800 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered December 23, 2021.

Comparing the impact of an icon array versus a bar graph on preference and understanding of risk information: Results from an online, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the best way to convey the probability of serious events occurring in the future (i.e., risk of stroke or death) to persons with low numeracy or graph literacy proficiency. To address this gap, we developed and user-tested a bar graph and compared it to icon arrays to assess its impact on understanding and preference for viewing risk information. OBJECTIVES: To determine the: (i) formats' impact on participants' understanding of risk information; (ii) formats' impact on understanding and format preference across numeracy and graph literacy subgroups; (iii) rationale supporting participants' preference for each graphical display format. METHODS: An online sample (evenly made up of participants with high and low objective numeracy and graph literacy) was randomized to view either the icon array or the bar graph. Each format conveyed the risk of major stroke and death five years after choosing surgery, a stent, or medication to treat carotid artery stenosis. Participants answered questions to assess their understanding of the risk information. Lastly, both formats were presented in parallel, and participants were asked to identify their preferred format to view risk information and explain their preference. RESULTS: Of the 407 participants, 197 were assigned the icon array and 210 the bar graph. Understanding of risk information and format preference did not differ significantly between the two trial arms, irrespective of numeracy and graph literacy proficiency. High numeracy and graph literacy proficiency was associated with high understanding (p<0.01) and a preference for the bar graph (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of one format over another on understanding. The majority of participants preferred viewing the risk information using the bar graph format.