Synthesizing subject-matter expertise for variable selection in causal effect estimation: A case study.

BACKGROUND: Causal graphs are an important tool for covariate selection but there is limited applied research on how best to create them. Here, we used data from the Coronary Drug Project (CDP) trial to assess a range of approaches to directed acyclic graph (DAG) creation. We focused on the effect of adherence on mortality in the placebo arm, since the true causal effect is believed with a high degree of certainty. METHODS: We created DAGs for the effect of placebo adherence on mortality using different approaches for identifying variables and links to include or exclude. For each DAG, we identified minimal adjustment sets of covariates for estimating our causal effect of interest, and applied these to analyses of the CDP data. RESULTS: When we used only baseline covariate values to estimate the cumulative effect of placebo adherence on mortality, all adjustment sets performed similarly. The specific choice of covariates had minimal effect on these (biased) point estimates, but including non-confounding prognostic factors resulted in smaller variance estimates. When we additionally adjusted for time-varying covariates of adherence using inverse probability weighting, covariates identified from the DAG created by focusing on prognostic factors performed best. CONCLUSION: Theoretical advice on covariate selection suggests including prognostic factors that are not exposure predictors can reduce variance without increasing bias. In contrast, for exposure predictors that are not prognostic factors, inclusion may result in less bias control. Our results empirically confirm this advice. We recommend that hand-creating DAGs begin with identification of all potential outcome-prognostic factors.

Associations between metals and metabolomic profiles related to diabetes among adults in a rural region.

INTRODUCTION: Exposure to metals is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Potential mechanisms for metals-T2D associations involve biological processes including oxidative stress and disruption of insulin-regulated glucose uptake. In this study, we assessed whether associations between metal exposure and metabolite profiles relate to biological pathways linked to T2D. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from 29 adults rural Colorado residents enrolled in the San Luis Valley Diabetes Study. Urinary concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, lead, manganese, and tungsten were measured. Metabolic effects were evaluated using untargeted metabolic profiling, which included 61,851 metabolite signals detected in serum. We evaluated cross-sectional associations between metals and metabolites present in at least 50% of samples. Primary analyses adjusted urinary heavy metal concentrations for creatinine. Metabolite outcomes associated with each metal exposure were evaluated using pathway enrichment to investigate potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between metals and T2D. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 58.5 years (standard deviation = 9.2), 48.3% were female, 48.3% identified as Hispanic/Latino, 13.8% were current smokers, and 65.5% had T2D. Of the detected metabolites, 455 were associated with at least one metal, including 42 associated with arsenic, 22 with cadmium, 10 with cobalt, 313 with lead, 66 with manganese, and two with tungsten. The metabolic features were linked to 24 pathways including linoleate metabolism, butanoate metabolism, and arginine and proline metabolism. Several of these pathways have been previously associated with T2D, and our results were similar when including only participants with T2D. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the hypothesis that metals exposure may be associated with biological processes related to T2D, including amino acid, co-enzyme, and sugar and fatty acid metabolism. Insight into biological pathways could influence interventions to prevent adverse health outcomes due to metal exposure.

Parents' Willingness to Vaccinate Children for COVID-19: Conspiracy Theories, Information Sources, and Perceived Responsibility.

Understanding parental decision-making about vaccinating their children for COVID-19 is essential to promoting uptake. We conducted an online survey between April 23-May 3, 2021, among a national sample of U.S. adults to assess parental willingness to vaccinate their child(ren). We also examined associations between parental intentions to VACCINATE their children for COVID-19 and conspiracy theory beliefs, trusted information sources, trust in public authorities, and perceptions regarding the responsibility to be vaccinated. Of 257 parents of children under 18 years that responded, 48.2% reported that they would vaccinate their children, 25.7% were unsure, and 26.1% said they would not vaccinate. After adjusting for covariates, each one-point increase in the Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scale was associated with 25% lower odds of parents intending to vaccinate their children compared to those who did not intend to (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-0.88). Parents that perceived an individual and societal responsibility to be vaccinated were more likely to report that they intended to vaccinate their children compared to those that did not intend to vaccinate their children (AOR = 5.65, 95% CI: 2.37-13.44). Findings suggest that interventions should focus on combatting conspiracy beliefs, promoting accurate and trusted information sources, and creating social norms emphasizing shared responsibility for vaccination.

COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage, Behaviors, and Intentions among Adults with Previous Diagnosis, United States.

To determine the extent of gaps in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine coverage among those in the United States with and without previous COVID-19 diagnoses, we used data from a large, nationally representative survey conducted during July 21-August 2, 2021. We analyzed vaccine receipt (≥1 dose and full vaccination) and intention to be vaccinated for 63,266 persons. Vaccination receipt was lower among those who had a prior diagnosis of COVID-19 compared to those without: >1 dose: 73% and 85%, respectively, p<0.001; full vaccination: 69% and 82%, respectively, p<0.001). Reluctance to be vaccinated was higher among those with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis (14%) than among those without (9%). These findings suggest the need to focus educational and confidence-building interventions on adults who receive a COVID-19 diagnosis during clinic visits, or at the time of discharge if hospitalized, and to better educate the public about the value of being vaccinated, regardless of previous COVID-19 infection.

Assessing equity in health, wealth, and civic engagement: a nationally representative survey, United States, 2020.

BACKGROUND: The principle of equity is fundamental to many current debates about social issues and plays an important role in community and individual health. Traditional research has focused on singular dimensions of equity (e.g., wealth), and often lacks a comprehensive perspective. The goal of this study was to assess relationships among three domains of equity, health, wealth, and civic engagement, in a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework to guide our inquiry of equity across health, wealth, and civic engagement constructs to generate a broad but nuanced understanding of equity. Through Ipsos' KnowledgePanel service, we conducted a cross-sectional, online survey between May 29-June 20, 2020 designed to be representative of the adult U.S. POPULATION: Based on our conceptual framework, we assessed the population-weighted prevalence of health outcomes and behaviors, as well as measures of wealth and civic engagement. We linked individual-level data with population-level environmental and social context variables. Using structural equation modeling, we developed latent constructs for wealth and civic engagement, to assess associations with a measured health variable. RESULTS: We found that the distribution of sociodemographic, health, and wealth measures in our sample (n = 1267) were comparable to those from other national surveys. Our quantitative illustration of the relationships among the domains of health, wealth, and civic engagement provided support for the interrelationships of constructs within our conceptual model. Latent constructs for wealth and civic engagement were significantly correlated (p = 0.013), and both constructs were used to predict self-reported health. Beta coefficients for all indicators of health, wealth, and civic engagement had the expected direction (positive or negative associations). CONCLUSION: Through development and assessment of our comprehensive equity framework, we found significant associations among key equity domains. Our conceptual framework and results can serve as a guide for future equity research, encouraging a more thorough assessment of equity.

Modeling the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater or sludge and COVID-19 cases in three New England regions.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare statistical techniques estimating the association between SARS-CoV-2 RNA in untreated wastewater and sludge and reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations (copies/mL) were measured from 24-h composite samples of wastewater in Massachusetts (MA) (daily; 8/19/2020-1/19/2021) and Maine (ME) (weekly; 9/1/2020-3/2/2021) and sludge samples in Connecticut (CT) (daily; 3/1/2020-6/1/2020). We fit linear, generalized additive with a cubic regression spline (GAM), Poisson, and negative binomial models to estimate the association between SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration and reported COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: The models that fit the data best were linear [adjusted R2=0.85 (MA), 0.16 (CT), 0.63 (ME); root-mean-square error (RMSE)=0.41 (MA), 1.14 (CT), 0.99 (ME)), GAM (adjusted R2=0.86 (MA), 0.16 (CT) 0.65 (ME); RMSE=0.39 (MA), 1.14 (CT), 0.97 (ME)], and Poisson [pseudo R2=0.84 (MA), 0.21 (CT), 0.52 (ME); RMSE=0.39 (MA), 0.67 (CT), 0.79 (ME)]. CONCLUSIONS: Linear, GAM, and Poisson models outperformed negative binomial models when relating SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater or sludge to reported COVID-19 cases.

Associations among political voting preference, high-risk health status, and preventative behaviors for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: We investigate the relationships among political preferences, risk for COVID-19 complications, and complying with preventative behaviors, such as social distancing, quarantine, and vaccination, as they remain incompletely understood. Since those with underlying health conditions have the highest mortality risk, prevention strategies targeting them and their caretakers effectively can save lives. Understanding caretakers' adherence is also crucial as their behavior affects the probability of transmission and quality of care, but is understudied. Examining the degree to which adherence to prevention measures within these populations is affected by their health status vs. voting preference, a key predictor of preventative behavior in the U. S, is imperative to improve targeted public health messaging. Knowledge of these associations could inform targeted COVID-19 campaigns to improve adherence for those at risk for severe consequences. METHODS: We conducted a nationally-representative online survey of U.S. adults between May-June 2020 assessing: 1) attempts to socially-distance; 2) willingness/ability to self-quarantine; and 3) intention of COVID-19 vaccination. We estimated the relationships between 1) political preferences 2) underlying health status, and 3) being a caretaker to someone with high-risk conditions and each dependent variable. Sensitivity analyses examined the associations between political preference and dependent variables among participants with high-risk conditions and/or obesity. RESULTS: Among 908 participants, 75.2% engaged in social-distancing, 94.4% were willing/able to self-quarantine, and 60.1% intended to get vaccinated. Compared to participants intending to vote for Biden, participants who intended to vote for Trump were significantly less likely to have tried to socially-distance, self-quarantine, or intend to be vaccinated. We observed the same trends in analyses restricted to participants with underlying health conditions and their caretakers Underlying health status was independently associated with social distancing among individuals with obesity and another high-risk condition, but not other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Engagement in preventative behavior is associated with political voting preference and not individual risk of severe COVID-19 or being a caretaker of a high-risk individual. Community based strategies and public health messaging should be tailored to individuals based on political preferences especially for those with obesity and other high-risk conditions. Efforts must be accompanied by broader public policy.

Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards causal directed acyclic graphs: a qualitative research project.

Causal graphs provide a key tool for optimizing the validity of causal effect estimates. Although a large literature exists on the mathematical theory underlying the use of causal graphs, less literature exists to aid applied researchers in understanding how best to develop and use causal graphs in their research projects. We sought to understand why researchers do or do not regularly use DAGs by surveying practicing epidemiologists and medical researchers on their knowledge, level of interest, attitudes, and practices towards the use of causal graphs in applied epidemiology and health research. We used Twitter and the Society for Epidemiologic Research to disseminate the survey. Overall, a majority of participants reported being comfortable with using causal graphs and reported using them 'sometimes', 'often', or 'always' in their research. Having received training appeared to improve comprehension of the assumptions displayed in causal graphs. Many of the respondents who did not use causal graphs reported lack of knowledge as a barrier to using DAGs in their research. Causal graphs are of interest to epidemiologists and medical researchers, but there are several barriers to their uptake. Additional training and clearer guidance are needed. In addition, methodological developments regarding visualization of effect measure modification and interaction on causal graphs is needed.

Prior COVID-19 Infection, Mental Health, Food and Financial Insecurity, and Association With COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage and Intent Among College-Aged Young Adults, US, 2021.

INTRODUCTION: More than 700,000 COVID-19 cases have been linked to American colleges and universities since the beginning of the pandemic. However, studies are limited on the effects of the pandemic on college-aged young adults and its association with their COVID-19 vaccination status and intent. METHODS: Using the Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a large, nationally representative survey fielded from April 14 through May 24, 2021, we assessed the effects of the pandemic (COVID-19 infection, mental health, food and financial security) on COVID-19 vaccination coverage (≥1 dose) and intentions toward vaccination among college-aged young adults in the United States (N = 6,758). We examined factors associated with vaccination coverage and intent, and reasons for not getting vaccinated. RESULTS: Approximately one-fifth (19.6%) of college-aged young adults had a previous diagnosis of COVID-19, 43.5% and 39.1% reported having anxiety or depression, respectively, 10.9% reported that they sometimes or often did not have enough food to eat, and 22.6% and 12.3% found it somewhat or very difficult, respectively, to pay for household expenses. Of college-aged young adults, 63.1% had received at least 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, 15.4% probably would be vaccinated or were unsure about getting the vaccine, and 14.0% probably will not or definitely will not get vaccinated. Adults who were non-Hispanic Black (vs non-Hispanic White) or had food or financial insecurities (vs did not) were less likely to be vaccinated or intend to be vaccinated. Among adults who probably will not or definitely will not be vaccinated, more than one-third said that they did not believe a vaccine was needed. CONCLUSION: Ensuring high and equitable vaccination coverage among college-aged young adults is critical for safely reopening in-person learning and resuming prepandemic activities.

Longitudinal associations of long-term exposure to ultrafine particles with blood pressure and systemic inflammation in Puerto Rican adults.

BACKGROUND: Few longitudinal studies have examined the association between ultrafine particulate matter (UFP, particles < 0.1 µm aerodynamic diameter) exposure and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. We used data from 791 adults participating in the longitudinal Boston Puerto Rican Health Study (Massachusetts, USA) between 2004 and 2015 to assess whether UFP exposure was associated with blood pressure and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP, a biomarker of systemic inflammation). METHODS: Residential annual average UFP exposure (measured as particle number concentration, PNC) was assigned using a model accounting for spatial and temporal trends. We also adjusted PNC values for participants' inhalation rate to obtain the particle inhalation rate (PIR) as a secondary exposure measure. Multilevel linear models with a random intercept for each participant were used to examine the association of UFP with blood pressure and hsCRP. RESULTS: Overall, in adjusted models, an inter-quartile range increase in PNC was associated with increased hsCRP (ß = 6.8; 95% CI = - 0.3, 14.0%) but not with increased systolic blood pressure (ß = 0.96; 95% CI = - 0.33, 2.25 mmHg), pulse pressure (ß = 0.70; 95% CI = - 0.27, 1.67 mmHg), or diastolic blood pressure (ß = 0.55; 95% CI = - 0.20, 1.30 mmHg). There were generally stronger positive associations among women and never smokers. Among men, there were inverse associations of PNC with systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure. In contrast to the primary findings, an inter-quartile range increase in the PIR was positively associated with systolic blood pressure (ß = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.00, 2.06 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (ß = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.36, 1.66 mmHg), but not with pulse pressure or hsCRP. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that exposure to PNC was associated with increases in measures of CVD risk markers, especially among certain sub-populations. The exploratory PIR exposure metric should be further developed.

Lessons from in-home air filtration intervention trials to reduce urban ultrafine particle number concentrations.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to airborne ultrafine particle (UFP; <100 nm in aerodynamic diameter) is an emerging public health problem. Nevertheless, the benefit of using high efficiency particulate arrestance (HEPA) filtration to reduce UFP concentrations in homes is not yet clear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover study of HEPA filtration without a washout period in 23 homes of low-income Puerto Ricans in Boston and Chelsea, MA (USA). Most participants were female, older adults who were overweight or obese. Particle number concentrations (PNC, a proxy for UFP) were measured indoors and outdoors at each home continuously for six weeks. Homes received both HEPA filtration and sham filtration for three weeks each in random order. RESULTS: Median PNC under HEPA filtration was 50-85% lower compared to sham filtration in most homes, but we found no benefit in terms of reduced inflammation; associations between hsCRP, IL-6, or TNFRII in blood samples and indoor PNC were inverse and not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations to our study design likely contributed to our findings. Limitations included carry-over effects, a population that may have been relatively unresponsive to UFP, reduction in PNC even during sham filtration that limited differences between HEPA and sham filtration, window opening by participants, and lack of fine-grained (room-specific) participant time-activity information. Our approach was similar to other recent HEPA intervention studies of particulate matter exposure and cardiovascular risk, suggesting that there is a need for better study designs.

Evidence for the healthy immigrant effect in older Chinese immigrants: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Previous work has found that first-generation immigrants to developed nations tend to have better health than individuals born in the host country. We examined the evidence for the healthy immigrant effect and convergence of health status between Chinese immigrants (n = 147) and U.S. born whites (n = 167) participating in the cross-sectional Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and Health study and residing in the same neighborhoods. METHODS: We used bivariate and multivariate models to compare disease prevalence and clinical biomarkers. RESULTS: Despite an older average age and lower socioeconomic status, Chinese immigrants were less likely to have asthma (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.09-0.48) or cardiovascular disease (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.20-0.94), had lower body mass index (BMI), lower inflammation biomarker levels, lower average sex-adjusted low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and higher average sex-adjusted high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. However, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of diabetes or hypertension. Duration of time in the U.S. was related to cardiovascular disease and asthma but was not associated with diabetes, hypertension, BMI, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, socioeconomic status, or health behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: The lower CVD and asthma prevalence among the Chinese immigrants may be partially attributed to healthier diets, more physical activity, lower BMI, and less exposure to cigarette smoke. First generation immigrant status may be protective even after about two decades.

Climate stress and anxiety, environmental context, and civic engagement: A nationally representative study.

There is increasing recognition that people are experiencing stress and anxiety around climate change, and that this climate stress/anxiety may be associated with more pro-environmental behavior. However, less is known about whether people's own environmental exposures affect climate stress/anxiety or the relationship between climate stress/anxiety and civic engagement. Using three waves of survey data (2020-2022) from the nationally representative Tufts Equity in Health, Wealth, and Civic Engagement Study of US adults (n = 1071), we assessed relationships among environmental exposures (county-level air pollution, greenness, number of toxic release inventory sites, and heatwaves), self-reported climate stress/anxiety, and civic engagement measures (canvasing behavior, collaborating to solve community problems, personal efficacy to solve community problems, group efficacy to solve community problems, voting behavior). Most participants reported experiencing climate stress/anxiety (61%). In general, the environmental exposures we assessed were not significantly associated with climate stress/anxiety or civic engagement metrics, but climate stress/anxiety was positively associated with most of the civic engagement outcomes (canvassing, personal efficacy, group efficacy, voter preference). Our results support the growing literature that climate stress/anxiety may spur constructive civic action, though do not suggest a consistent relationship between adverse environmental exposures and either climate stress/anxiety or civic engagement. Future research and action addressing the climate crisis should promote climate justice by ensuring mental health support for those who experience climate stress anxiety and by promoting pro-environmental civic engagement efforts.

Reasons for COVID-19 Non-Vaccination from 2021 to 2023 for Adults, Adolescents, and Children.

Understanding how attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination have changed over time is essential for identifying areas where targeted messaging and interventions can improve vaccination confidence and uptake. Using data from multiple waves of the nationally representative U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey collected from January 2021 to May 2023, we assessed reasons for the non-vaccination of adults, adolescents, and children using the Health Belief Model as the framework for understanding behavior. Among unvaccinated adults, perceived vulnerability increased from 11.9% to 44.1%, attitudinal factors/mistrust increased from 28.6% to 53.4%, and lack of cue to action increased from 7.5% to 9.7% from January 2021 to May 2022. On the other hand, safety/efficacy concerns decreased from 74.0% to 60.9%, and logistical barriers to vaccination decreased from 9.1% to 3.4% during the same time period. Regarding reasons for non-vaccination of youth, perceived vulnerability increased from 32.8% to 40.0%, safety/efficacy concerns decreased from 73.9% to 60.4%, and lack of cue to action increased from 10.4% to 13.4% between September 2021 and May 2023. While safety/efficacy concerns and logistic barriers have decreased, increases in perceived vulnerability to COVID-19, mistrust, and lack of cues to action suggest that more efforts are needed to address these barriers to vaccination.

Prevalence and Factors Associated with Long COVID Symptoms among U.S. Adults, 2022.

Long COVID and its symptoms have not been examined in different subpopulations of U.S. adults. Using the 2022 BRFSS (n = 445,132), we assessed long COVID and each symptom by sociodemographic characteristics and health-related variables. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine factors associated with long COVID and the individual symptoms. Prevalence differences were conducted to examine differences in long COVID by vaccination status. Overall, more than one in five adults who ever had COVID-19 reported symptoms consistent with long COVID (21.8%). The most common symptom was tiredness or fatigue (26.2%), followed by difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (18.9%), and loss of taste or smell (17.0%). Long COVID was more common among adults under 65 years, women, American Indian or Alaska Native or other/multi race group, smokers, and people with a disability, depression, overweight or obesity compared to their respective counterparts. The prevalence of long COVID was higher among unvaccinated adults (25.6%) than vaccinated adults (21.6%) overall, and for 20 of 32 subgroups assessed. These findings underscore the benefits of vaccination, the importance of early treatment, and the need to better inform health care resource allocation and support services for those experiencing long COVID.

Prior COVID-19 Diagnosis, Severe Outcomes, and Long COVID among U.S. Adults, 2022.

Given the increase in COVID-19 emergency department visits and hospitalizations during the winter of 2023-2024, identifying groups that have a high prevalence of COVID-19 cases, severity, and long-term symptoms can help increase efforts toward reducing disparities and prevent severe COVID-19 outcomes. Using data from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey (n = 27,651), we assessed the prevalence of COVID-19 outcomes (prior diagnosis, moderate/severe COVID-19, and long COVID) by sociodemographic characteristics and factors associated with each COVID-19 outcome. Approximately one third of adults reported a prior COVID-19 diagnosis (30.7%), while one half (51.6%) who had COVID-19 reported moderate or severe symptoms, and one fifth (19.7%) who had COVID-19 symptoms reported long COVID. The following were associated with higher odds of moderate/severe COVID-19 and long COVID: havinga high-risk condition (aOR = 1.20, OR = 1.52); having anxiety or depression (OR = 1.46, OR = 1.49); having a disability (OR = 1.41, OR = 1.60); and having a food insecurity (OR = 1.37, OR = 1.50) compared to a lack of these conditions. Having two or more COVID-19 vaccinations was associated with lower odds of a COVID-19 diagnosis (OR = 0.75), moderate/severe COVID-19 (OR = 0.86), and long COVID (OR = 0.82). Improving vaccination coverage and reducing disparities in COVID-19 outcomes could advance health equities and protect against future resurgence of disease.

Association between COVID-19 Booster Vaccination and COVID-19 Outcomes among U.S. Adults.

Understanding the association between booster vaccination and COVID-19 outcomes can help strengthen post-pandemic messaging and strategies to increase vaccination and reduce severe and long-term consequences of COVID-19. Using the Household Pulse Survey data collected from U.S. adults from 9 December 2022 to 13 February 2023 (n = 214,768), this study assessed the relationship between COVID-19 booster vaccination and COVID-19 outcomes (testing positive for COVID-19, moderate/severe COVID-19, and long COVID). Disparities were found in COVID-19 outcomes (e.g., testing positive for COVID-19, moderate/severe COVID-19, and long COVID) by sociodemographic characteristics, region of residence, food insecurity status, mental health status, disability status, and housing type. Receipt of a COVID-19 booster vaccination was negatively associated with testing positive for COVID-19 (aOR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.72,0.79), having moderate/severe COVID-19 (aOR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.88, 0.97), or having long COVID (aOR = 0.86 (0.80, 0.91)). Even among those who tested positive for COVID-19, those who received the booster vaccine were less likely to have moderate/severe COVID-19 and less likely to have long COVID. Communicating the benefits of COVID-19 booster vaccination, integrating vaccination in patient visits, and reducing access barriers can increase vaccination uptake and confidence for all individuals and protect them against the severe negative outcomes of COVID-19.

Attitudes on Equal Health Care Access versus Efficient Clinical Decisions across a Not-for-Profit Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Professional roles within a hospital system may influence attitudes behind clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: To determine participants' preferences about clinical decisions that either value equal health care access or efficiency. DESIGN: Deidentified survey asking participants to choose between offering a low-cost screening test to a whole population ("equal access") or a more sensitive, expensive test that could be given to only half of the population but resulting in 10% more avoided deaths ("efficient"). Data collection took place from August 18, 2021, to January 24, 2022. Study 1644 was determined to be exempt by Tufts Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB). SETTING: Tufts Medicine Healthcare System. PARTICIPANTS: Approximately 15,000 hospital employees received an e-mail from the Tufts Medicine Senior Vice President of Academic Integration. MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of survey responses with chi-square and 1-sample t tests to determine the proportion who chose each option. Logistic regression models fit to examine relationships between professional role and test choice. RESULTS: A total of 1,346 participants completed the survey (∼9.0% response rate). Overall, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the "equal access" (48%) and "efficient" option (52%). However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choice. For example, among those in nonclinical roles, women were more likely than men to choose equal health care access. In multivariable analyses, having clinical roles was significantly associated with 1.73 times the likelihood of choosing equal access (95% confidence interval = 1.33-2.25). LIMITATIONS: Generalizability concerns and survey question wording limit the study results. CONCLUSION: Clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option, and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency. These differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality. HIGHLIGHTS: Divergent preferences of valuing equal health care access and efficiency may be in conflict during clinical decision making.In this cross-sectional study that included 1,346 participants, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the "equal access" (48%) and "efficient" option (52%), a nonsignificant difference. However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choiceSince clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency, these differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality.

COVID-19 booster vaccination coverage among adults, children and adolescents and reasons for non-receipt, United States.

We assessed COVID-19 booster vaccination coverage and reasons for non-receipt using a large, nationally representative survey (June - August, 2022). Booster vaccination coverage was 71.7% among adults, 36.8% among children, and 51.6% among adolescents. Reasons for non-receipt included the belief that it was not necessary and lack of time for vaccination. All eligible individuals should receive the updated booster vaccines as soon as possible to protect against new variants of COVID-19.

Disparities in child and adolescent COVID-19 vaccination coverage and parental intent toward vaccinations for their children and adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recommendations for COVID-19 primary series completion and booster doses for children and adolescents, coverage has been less than optimal, particularly in some subpopulations. This study explored disparities in childhood/adolescent COVID-19 vaccination, parental intent to vaccinate their children and adolescents, and reasons for non-vaccination in the US. METHODS: Using the U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey (HPS), we analyzed households with children aged <18 years using data collected from September 14 to November 14, 2022 (n = 44,929). Child and adolescent COVID-19 vaccination coverage (≥1 dose, completed primary series, and booster vaccination) and parental intentions toward vaccination were assessed by sociodemographic characteristics. Factors associated with child and adolescent vaccination coverage were examined using multivariable regression models. Reasons for non-vaccination were assessed overall, by the child's age group and respondent's age group. RESULTS: Overall, approximately half (50.1%) of children aged < 18 years were vaccinated against COVID-19 (≥1 dose). Completed primary series vaccination was 44.2% among all children aged <18 years. By age group, completed primary series was 13.2% among children <5 years, 43.9% among children 5-11 years, and 63.3% among adolescents 12-17 years. Booster vaccination among those who completed the primary series was 39.1% among children 5-11 years and 55.3% among adolescents 12-17 years. Vaccination coverage differed by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, region, parental COVID-19 vaccination status, prior COVID-19 diagnosis, child's age group, and parental age group. Parental reluctance was highest for children aged <5 years (46.8%). Main reasons for non-vaccination among reluctant parents were concerns about side effects (53.3%), lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (48.7%), and the belief that children do not need a COVID-19 vaccine (38.8%). CONCLUSION: Disparities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children and adolescents continue to exist. Further efforts are needed to increase COVID-19 primary series and booster vaccination and parental confidence in vaccines.

Using survey data collected from September 14 to November 14, 2022, COVID-19 vaccination coverage was low among children and adolescents. Overall, approximately half (50.1%) of the children aged <18 years were vaccinated against COVID-19 (≥1 dose). Completed primary series vaccination was 44.2% among all children aged < 18 years. By age group, completed primary series was 13.2% among children <5 years, 43.9% among children 5­11 years, and 63.3% among adolescents 12­17 years. Booster vaccination, among those who completed the primary series, was 39.1% among children 5­11 years and 55.3% among adolescents 12­17 years.Vaccination coverage differed by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, region, parental COVID-19 vaccination status, prior COVID-19 diagnosis, child's age group, and parental age group.Parental reluctance was the highest for children aged <5 years (46.8%), followed by children 5­11 years (35.8%) and adolescents 12­17 years (23.5%).Main reasons for non-vaccination among reluctant parents were concerns about side effects (53.3%), lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (48.7%), the belief that children do not need a COVID-19 vaccine (38.8%), lack of trust in the government (35.6%), and that children in the household were not members of a high-risk group (32.8%).Disparities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children and adolescents continue to exist. Further efforts are needed to increase COVID-19 primary series and booster vaccination and parental confidence in vaccines.