The effectiveness of financial incentives for COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review.

Financial incentives are a controversial strategy for increasing vaccination. In this systematic review, we evaluated: 1) the effects of incentives on COVID-19 vaccinations; 2) whether effects differed based on study outcome, study design, incentive type and timing, or sample sociodemographic characteristics; and 3) the cost of incentives per additional vaccine administered. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Econlit up to March 2022 for terms related to COVID, vaccines, and financial incentives, and identified 38 peer-reviewed, quantitative studies. Independent raters extracted study data and evaluated study quality. Studies examined the impact of financial incentives on COVID-19 vaccine uptake (k = 18), related psychological outcomes (e.g., vaccine intentions, k = 19), or both types of outcomes. For studies of vaccine uptake, none found that financial incentives had a negative effect on uptake, and most rigorous studies found that incentives had a positive effect on uptake. By contrast, studies of vaccine intentions were inconclusive. While three studies concluded that incentives may negatively impact vaccine intentions for some individuals, they had methodological limitations. Study outcomes (uptake versus intentions) and study design (experimental versus observational frameworks) appeared to influence results more than incentive type or timing. Additionally, income and political affiliation may moderate responses to incentives. Most studies evaluating cost per additional vaccine administered found that they ranged from $49-75. Overall, fears about financial incentives decreasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake are not supported by the evidence. Financial incentives likely increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. While these increases appear to be small, they may be meaningful across populations. Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022316086 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022316086).

Clinician Intentions to use the Components of Parent Coaching Within Community Early Intervention Systems.

PURPOSE: Parent coaching is a complex, psychosocial intervention with multiple core components. Clinicians' use of these core components may be influenced by distinct factors; no research has examined whether clinician perceptions of parent coaching vary across core coaching components. This study aimed to examine the extent to which clinicians working with families of young autistic children in publicly funded early intervention intend to use core parent coaching components, and to examine how closely psychological factors relate to providers' intentions to use each component. METHODS: Using the Theory of Planned Behavior as a framework, this study compared the strength of clinicians' intentions across five core parent coaching components: collaboration with parents, delivering the intervention within daily routines, demonstrating the intervention, providing in-vivo feedback, and reflection and problem solving. We examined the associations between intentions and psychological determinants of intentions (i.e., attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy) for each component. RESULTS: Clinicians' average intentions varied by core component, with strongest intentions for demonstrating the intervention strategy for a parent. The associations between intentions and psychological determinants also varied by core component. Attitudes, injunctive norms, and self-efficacy, but not descriptive norms, significantly related to clinicians' intentions to use collaboration and daily routines, whereas attitudes and descriptive norms, but not injunctive norms and self-efficacy, significantly related to clinicians' intentions to use feedback and reflection and problem solving. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that implementation strategies should be tailored to the specific intervention component to be most efficient and effective. The results also provide examples of potentially malleable factors that implementation strategies can strategically target.

Variability in clinician intentions to implement specific cognitive-behavioral therapy components.

BACKGROUND: CBT comprises many discrete components that vary in complexity, but implementation and training efforts often approach CBT as a single entity. We examined variability in clinician intentions to use different structural and interventional components of CBT for three different clinical groups: clients receiving CBT, clients with depression, and clients with anxiety. METHODS: Clinicians (n = 107) trained in CBT completed a one-time electronic survey. Clinicians' intentions were measured using established item stems from social psychology adapted to examine intentions to use six specific CBT components: exposure therapy, cognitive restructuring, behavioral activation, planning homework, reviewing homework, and agenda-setting. RESULTS: Intentions were weakest, on average, for exposure. They were strongest, on average, for reviewing homework. A series of ANOVAs with Tukey's post-hoc tests revealed that participants intended to use exposure with clients receiving CBT (p = .015) and clients with anxiety (p < .001) significantly more than for clients with depression. Participants intended to use behavioral activation with clients with depression (p = .01) significantly more than for clients with anxiety. No other intentions to use CBT components differed among these three clinical populations. CONCLUSIONS: When studying determinants of CBT use and designing interventions to increase use, implementers should consider that different CBT components may require different implementation strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

A randomized trial to identify accurate and cost-effective fidelity measurement methods for cognitive-behavioral therapy: project FACTS study protocol.

BACKGROUND: This randomized trial will compare three methods of assessing fidelity to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for youth to identify the most accurate and cost-effective method. The three methods include self-report (i.e., therapist completes a self-report measure on the CBT interventions used in session while circumventing some of the typical barriers to self-report), chart-stimulated recall (i.e., therapist reports on the CBT interventions used in session via an interview with a trained rater, and with the chart to assist him/her) and behavioral rehearsal (i.e., therapist demonstrates the CBT interventions used in session via a role-play with a trained rater). Direct observation will be used as the gold-standard comparison for each of the three methods. METHODS/DESIGN: This trial will recruit 135 therapists in approximately 12 community agencies in the City of Philadelphia. Therapists will be randomized to one of the three conditions. Each therapist will provide data from three unique sessions, for a total of 405 sessions. All sessions will be audio-recorded and coded using the Therapy Process Observational Coding System for Child Psychotherapy-Revised Strategies scale. This will enable comparison of each measurement approach to direct observation of therapist session behavior to determine which most accurately assesses fidelity. Cost data associated with each method will be gathered. To gather stakeholder perspectives of each measurement method, we will use purposive sampling to recruit 12 therapists from each condition (total of 36 therapists) and 12 supervisors to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. DISCUSSION: Results will provide needed information on how to accurately and cost-effectively measure therapist fidelity to CBT for youth, as well as important information about stakeholder perspectives with regard to each measurement method. Findings will inform fidelity measurement practices in future implementation studies as well as in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02820623 , June 3rd, 2016.

Common measures of vaccination intention generate substantially different estimates that can reduce predictive validity.

Surveys often estimate vaccination intentions using dichotomous ("Yes"/"No") or trichotomous ("Yes," "Unsure," "No") response options presented in different orders. Do survey results depend on these variations? This controlled experiment randomized participants to dichotomous or trichotomous measures of vaccine intentions (with "Yes" and "No" options presented in different orders). Intentions were measured separately for COVID-19, its booster, and influenza vaccines. Among a sample of U.S. adults (N = 4,764), estimates of vaccine intention varied as much as 37.5 ± 17.4 percentage points as a function of the dichotomous or trichotomous response set. Among participants who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, the "Unsure" option was more likely to reduce the share of "No" (versus "Yes") responses, whereas among participants who had received the COVID-19 vaccine, the "Unsure" option was more likely to reduce the share of "Yes" (versus "No") responses. The "Unsure" category may increase doubt and decrease reliance on past vaccination behavior when forming intentions. The order of "Yes" and "No" responses had no significant effect. Future research is needed to further evaluate why the effects of including the "Unsure" option vary in direction and magnitude.

Salient beliefs related to secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits within social networks.

Background: Widespread access to testing is critical to public health efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits, where an individual distributes test kits to others in their social networks, is a potential strategy to improve access to testing. In this qualitative study, we identified salient beliefs about distributing and accepting COVID-19 self-test kits within one's social network, as well as ordering COVID-19 self-test kits from the government. Methods: We recruited 61 participants from a randomized controlled trial (NCT04797858) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to elicit beliefs about (1) distributing COVID-19 self-test kits within one's social network, (2) receiving test kits from social contacts, and (3) ordering self-test kits from the government. Using validated, open-ended question stems, we identified the most common set of beliefs underlying attitudes, perceived norms (or social referents), and perceived behavioral control (or self-efficacy) toward each of these behaviors. Results: Twenty-seven out of 30 (90%) of participants who received self-test kits reported distributing the kits to social contacts. These participants described altruistic beliefs about giving others access to testing, and felt approval from family members, friends, and others in their social networks. When receiving test kits from social network contacts, participants described advantages of test kit convenience, but some voiced concern about test kit tampering and confusing instructions. Participants also described perceived logistic barriers to distributing and receiving self-test kits, such as delivering or transporting test kits, or finding time to meet. Participants who ordered test kits from the government also described increased convenience of test access, but described different logistic barriers such as delays in test kit delivery, or not receiving test kits at all. Conclusion: In comparison with government-ordered test kits, the secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits raised unique concerns about test kit quality and instructions, as well as distinctive logistic barriers related to distributing self-test kits to network contacts, which were not raised for test kits ordered from the government. This study demonstrates that beliefs may vary depending on the type of testing behavior, and behavioral interventions may benefit from developing messages tailored to specific testing strategies.

Do some prefer to pay? Identifying bias against free COVID-19 tests.

Objectives: In the United States, a federal emergency program has made SARS-CoV-2 self-test kits available at no cost. It is unclear how widely free tests are preferred. We conducted a survey to estimate the proportion of respondents who do not prefer a free test. We hypothesized that free tests would not be preferred universally, and that a preference for paying would be more common among those with conservative politics than with liberal politics, regardless of income. Design: Observational study design. Methods: A national sample of US adults completed an online survey. To reduce potential enrollment bias, the survey's focus was not specified beforehand. To prioritize a high-risk group, participation was limited to those who were unvaccinated or were incompletely vaccinated in the primary series against COVID-19. Participants reported their testing preferences and socio-demographic characteristics, including political affiliation. The main outcome assessed if a participant preferred to pay for a self-test or receive a free one (subsidized by the US government). Results: Among 1215 participants, (73%, n = 886) preferred free self-testing, while 27% (n = 329) preferred to pay for the same testing. After adjusting for income, the odds of preferring to pay for self-testing were 66% higher in "strong" Republicans compared to "strong" Democrats (odds ratio = 1.66, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-2.62). Conclusions: More than a quarter of individuals preferred paying for these tests. This preference was more likely among those with right-wing politics. Policy implications are discussed, along with future research directions.

Implementation fidelity, student outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of train-the-trainer strategies for Masters-level therapists in urban schools: results from a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of train-the-trainer implementation strategies in supporting mental health evidence-based practices in schools, and about the optimal level of support needed for TT strategies. METHODS: The current study is part of a larger type 2 hybrid cluster randomized controlled trial. It compares two train-the-trainer strategies, Train-the-Trainer (TT) and Train-the-Trainer plus ongoing consultation for trainers (TT +) on the delivery of a group cognitive behavioral treatment protocol for anxiety disorders. Participants were 33 therapists, 29 supervisors, and 125 students who were at risk for anxiety disorders from 22 urban schools. Implementation outcomes were implementation fidelity and treatment dosage. Student outcomes were child- and parent-reported symptoms of anxiety, child-reported symptoms of depression, and teacher-reported academic engagement. We estimated the cost of implementing the intervention in each condition and examined the probability that a support strategy for supervisors (TT vs TT +) is a good value for varying values of willingness to pay. RESULTS: Therapists in the TT and TT + conditions obtained similarly high implementation fidelity and students in the conditions received similar treatment dosages. A mixed effects modeling approach for student outcomes revealed time effects for symptoms of anxiety and depression reported by students, and emotional disaffection reported by teachers. There were no condition or condition × times effects. For both conditions, the time effects indicated an improvement from pre-treatment to post-treatment in symptoms of anxiety and depression and academic emotional engagement. The average cost of therapist, supervisor, and consultant time required to implement the intervention in each condition was $1002 for TT and $1431 for TT + (p = 0.01). There was a greater than 80% chance that TT was a good value compared to TT + for all values of willingness to pay per one-point improvement in anxiety scores. CONCLUSIONS: A TT implementation approach consisting of a thorough initial training workshop for therapists and supervisors as well as ongoing supervision for therapists resulted in adequate levels of fidelity and student outcomes but at a lower cost, compared to the TT + condition that also included ongoing external expert consultation for supervisors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02651402.

Large and small financial incentives may motivate COVID-19 vaccination: A randomized, controlled survey experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Experts continue to debate how to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates. Some experts advocate for financial incentives. Others argue that financial incentives, especially large ones, will have counterproductive psychological effects, reducing the percent of people who want to vaccinate. Among a racially and ethnically diverse U.S. sample of lower income adults, for whom vaccine uptake has lagged compared with higher income adults, we empirically examine such claims about relatively large and small guaranteed cash payments. METHODS: In 2021, we conducted a randomized, controlled experiment among U.S. residents with incomes below $80,000 who reported being unvaccinated against COVID-19. Study participants were randomized to one of four study arms. In two arms, respondents first learned about a policy proposal to pay $1,000 or $200 to those who received COVID-19 vaccination and were then asked if, given that policy, they would want to vaccinate. In the two other arms, respondents received either an educational message about this vaccine or received no vaccine information and were then asked if they wanted to vaccinate for COVID-19. The primary analyses estimated and compared the overall percentage in each study arm that reported wanting to vaccinate for COVID-19. In other analyses, we estimated and compared these percentages for subgroups of interest, including gender, race/ethnicity, and education. MAIN RESULTS: Among 2,290 unvaccinated adults, 79.7% (95%CI, 76.4-83.0%) of those who learned about the proposed $1,000 payment wanted to get vaccinated, compared with 58.9% (95%CI, 54.8-63.0%) in the control condition without vaccine information, a difference of 20 percentage points. Among those who learned of the proposed $200 payment, 74.8% (95% CI, 71.3-78.4%) wanted to vaccinate. Among those who learned only about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, 68.9% (95% CI, 65.1-72.7%) wanted to vaccinate. Findings were consistent across various subgroups. DISCUSSION: Despite several study limitations, the results do not support concerns that the financial incentive policies aimed to increase COVID-19 vaccination would have counterproductive effects. Instead, those who learned about a policy with a large or small financial incentive were more likely than those in the control condition to report that they would want to vaccinate. The positive effects extended to subgroups that have been less likely to vaccinate, including younger adults, those with less education, and racial and ethnic minorities. Financial incentives of $1,000 performed similarly to those offering only $200.

Is public communication about end-of-life care helping to inform all? Cancer news coverage in African American versus mainstream media.

BACKGROUND: Because cancers are a leading cause of death, these diseases receive a great deal of news attention. However, because news media frequently target specific racial or ethnic audiences, some populations may receive different information, and it is unknown whether reporting equally informs all audiences about the options for care at the end of life. This study of news reporting compared "mainstream" (general market) media with African American media, which serves the largest minority group. The specific goal of this study was to determine whether these news media communicate differently about cure-directed cancer treatment and end-of-life alternatives. METHODS: This content analysis included 660 cancer news stories from online and print media that targeted either African American or mainstream audiences. The main outcome measures included whether reporting discussed adverse events of cancer treatment, cancer treatment failure, cancer death/dying, and end-of-life palliative or hospice care. RESULTS: Unadjusted and adjusted analyses indicated that the news stories in the African American media are less likely than those in mainstream media to discuss each of the topics studied. Comparing the proportions of news stories in mainstream versus African American media, 31.6% versus 13.6% discussed adverse events (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-5.66; P = .001); 14.1% versus 4.2% mentioned treatment failure (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.45-9.88; P = .006); and 11.9% versus 3.8% focused on death/dying (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.39-8.38; P = .007). Finally, although very few news stories discussed end-of-life hospice or palliative care, all were found in mainstream media (7/396 vs 0/264). CONCLUSION: The African American news media sampled are less likely than mainstream news media to portray negative cancer outcomes and end-of-life care. Given media's segmented audiences, these findings raise concerns that not all audiences are being informed equally well. Because media content is modifiable, there may be opportunities to improve public cancer communication.

Comparative effectiveness of mandates and financial policies targeting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A randomized, controlled survey experiment.

Experts debate whether COVID-19 vaccine mandates or financial incentives will reduce, rather than increase, interest in vaccination. Among 3,698 unvaccinated U.S. residents, we conducted a randomized, controlled survey-embedded experiment to estimate the absolute and relative psychological effects of vaccine policies specifying: mandates by employers or airlines, bars, and restaurants; lotteries for $1 million, $200,000, or $100,000; guaranteed cash for $1000, $200, or $100; and $1,000 as either a tax credit or penalty. Vaccine intention -the study outcome- predicts uptake and provides insight into the psychological mechanism that is most proximal to behavior (i.e., vaccination). Compared to controls, those who learned about the $1,000 cash reward policy were 17.1 (±5.3)% more likely to want vaccination. Employer mandates are more promising than other mandate policies (8.6 [+/- 7.4]% vs. 1.4 [+/- 6.0]%). The full results suggest that neither mandates nor financial incentives are likely to have counterproductive psychological effects. These policies are not mutually exclusive and, if implemented well, they may increase vaccine uptake.

Incorporating HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Care for Patients Seeking Induced Abortion and Pregnancy Loss Management.

BACKGROUND: Family planning clinical encounters are important opportunities for HIV prevention. Our objectives were to 1) estimate the proportion of patients seeking induced abortion and early pregnancy loss management eligible for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and 2) compare PrEP eligibility and uptake between patients with unintended and intended pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey and a nested prospective cohort study of patients seeking an induced abortion or early pregnancy loss management. We assessed pregnancy intendedness, PrEP awareness, HIV risk and risk perception, desire for same-day PrEP start, and PrEP continuation at 30 days. We used the χ2 and Fisher's exact tests to assess differences between the participants with intended and unintended pregnancy. We had 80% power to detect a 14% difference in PrEP eligibility between the groups. RESULTS: We enrolled 250 women. Fifty-six percent (139) had an unintended pregnancy and 44% (110) had an intended pregnancy. PrEP eligibility did not differ significantly between the patients with intended and unintended pregnancy (16% vs. 10%; p = .18). More than one-half (54%, 135/250) were unaware of PrEP before their study visit, and 93% (232/250) considered themselves unlikely to acquire HIV. Of 33 women who were PrEP eligible, 11 accepted same-day start and 1 continued PrEP at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Intendedness of pregnancy was unrelated to PrEP eligibility in women seeking induced abortion and early pregnancy loss management. Most patients seeking these services are unaware of PrEP. Integrating PrEP into family planning care is likely to increase awareness and uptake of PrEP in women.

Implementation of an HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Strategy Into Abortion and Early Pregnancy Loss Care.

BACKGROUND: Family planning and abortion clinics routinely address sexual health. We sought to evaluate implementation outcomes of an HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care strategy for patients seeking management of induced abortion and pregnancy loss. SETTING: Single-center, urban, academic, hospital-based family planning service. METHODS: We used a multifaceted implementation strategy directed toward family planning providers comprised of educational sessions, an electronic medical record-prompted verbal assessment of HIV risk, electronic medical record shortcuts for PrEP prescription, and support of a PrEP navigator. We assessed penetration of the intervention by calculating the penetration of a PrEP offer, measured as the proportion of encounters in which PrEP was offered to PrEP-eligible individuals. We evaluated feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the intervention using belief elicitation interviews with providers. RESULTS: From November 2018 to April 2019, the proportion of PrEP eligible patients who were offered PrEP, was 87.9% (29/33). Providers found the intervention acceptable and appropriate, but reported barriers including time constraints, and disappointment if patients did not adhere to PrEP. Providers liked that PrEP provision in abortion care settings felt innovative, and that they could contribute to HIV prevention. CONCLUSION: Family planning providers in an academic center found HIV risk assessment and PrEP provision to be feasible, acceptable, and appropriate. Further research should evaluate implementation outcomes of PrEP care strategies in additional abortion care contexts, including clinics offering reproductive health care outside of academia.

Analysis of Specialist and Patient Perspectives on Strategies to Improve Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Among Persons With Psoriatic Disease.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with psoriatic disease are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is a leading cause of mortality in this population. However, many of these patients do not have an active relationship with a primary care physician, and there may be a role for specialist-led care in prevention of CVD. OBJECTIVE: To explore clinician and patient perspectives regarding strategies to improve CVD prevention via specialist-led care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using electronically collected surveys, a best-worst scaling experimental survey study was conducted among dermatologists through the National Psoriasis Foundation as well as the American Academy of Dermatology from October 27, 2020, to April 1, 2021, to rank the strategies according to their potential to improve CVD prevention among patients with psoriatic disease. Participants were asked about the feasibility of specialist-led screening through an electronically delivered survey from the National Psoriasis Foundation conducted between February 1 and April 21, 2021. Patients with psoriatic disease were asked about whether they would like the specialist to screen for CVD risk factors. In addition, patients reported their likelihood to engage in CVD risk screening and management behaviors in scenarios in which either the primary care physician or specialist was making the recommendations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For the clinician surveys, the primary outcome was the ratio scaled preference score (range, 0-100; higher is more preferred), as well as whether they think calculating a 10-year CVD risk score and prescribing statins seems feasible. For the patient surveys, the primary outcome was the likelihood to check cholesterol level, incorporate diet and exercise, or use statin therapy depending on whether recommended by the specialist or primary care physician, whether they would like their specialist to educate them about CVD risk, and whether they would find it convenient to have their cholesterol level checked by their specialist. RESULTS: Among 183 dermatologists (102 [55.7%] women; mean [SD] age not collected), clinical decision support (preference score, 22.3; 95% CI, 20.7-24.0), patient education (preference score, 14.1; 95% CI, 12.5-15.7), and clinician education (preference score, 15.8; 95% CI, 14.3-17.3) were ranked as strategies likely to improve CVD prevention in patients with psoriatic disease. In addition, 69.3% (95% CI, 62.2%-76.0%) of dermatologists agreed or strongly agreed that checking lipid levels was feasible. Among 160 patients with psoriasis and 162 patients with psoriatic arthritis (226 [70.2%] women; mean [SD] age, 54 [13.3] years), patients reported they were as likely to engage in cardiovascular risk screening and management behaviors whether recommended by their primary care physician or their specialist. In addition, 60.0% (95% CI, 52.0%-67.7%) of patients with psoriasis and 75.3% (95% CI, 67.9%-81.7%) of those with psoriatic arthritis agreed that it would be convenient for them to have their cholesterol checked by their dermatologist/rheumatologist. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this survey study, dermatologists and patients with psoriatic disease expressed positive perspectives about engaging in a specialist-led model of care to improve CVD prevention. Dermatologists appear to view several strategies as having potential to improve cardiovascular risk prevention.

Stakeholder intention to engage in fidelity measurement methods in community mental health settings: A mixed methods study.

Background: The current gold standard for measuring fidelity (specifically, adherence) to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is direct observation, a costly, resource-intensive practice that is not feasible for many community organizations to implement regularly. Recent research indicates that behavioral rehearsal (i.e., role-play between clinician and individual with regard to session delivery) and chart-stimulated recall (i.e., brief structured interview between clinician and individual about what they did in session; clinicians use the client chart to prompt memory) may provide accurate and affordable alternatives for measuring adherence to CBT in such settings, with behavioral rehearsal yielding greater correspondence with direct observation. Methods: Drawing on established causal theories from social psychology and leading implementation science frameworks, this study evaluates stakeholders' intention to use behavioral rehearsal and chart-stimulated recall. Specifically, we measured attitudes, self-efficacy, and subjective norms toward using each, and compared these factors across the two methods. We also examined the relationship between attitudes, self-efficacy, subjective norms, and intention to use each method. Finally, using an integrated approach we asked stakeholders to discuss their perception of contextual factors that may influence beliefs about using each method. These data were collected from community-based supervisors (n = 17) and clinicians (n = 66). Results: Quantitative analyses suggest moderately strong intention to use both methods across stakeholders. There were no differences in supervisors' or clinicians' attitudes, self-efficacy, subjective norms, or intention across methods. More positive attitudes and greater reported subjective norms were associated with greater reported intention to use either measure. Qualitative analyses identified participants' specific beliefs about using each fidelity measure in their organization, and results were organized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Conclusions: Strategies are warranted to overcome or minimize potential barriers to using fidelity measurement methods and to further increase the strength of intention to use them.Plain Language Summary: The best way to measure fidelity, or how closely a clinician follows the protocol, to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is watching the session. This is an expensive practice that is not feasible for many community organizations to do regularly. Recent research indicates that behavioral rehearsal, or a role-play between the clinician and individual with regard to session delivery, and chart-stimulated recall, or a brief discussion between an individual and the clinician about what they did in session with the clinician having access to the chart to help them remember, may provide accurate and affordable alternatives for measuring fidelity to CBT. We just completed a study demonstrating that both methods are promising, with behavioral rehearsal offering scores that are the most similar to watching the session. Drawing on established theories from social psychology and leading implementation science frameworks, this study evaluates future supervisor and clinician motivation to use these fidelity measurement methods. Specifically, we measured supervisor (n = 17) and clinician (n = 66) attitudes, norms, self-efficacy, intentions, and anticipated barriers and facilitators to using each of these fidelity measurement tools. Quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest similar intention to use both methods, and concerns about barriers to using each method. Further research is warranted to minimize the burden associated with implementing fidelity measurement methods and deploying strategies to increase use.

Attitude theory and measurement in implementation science: a secondary review of empirical studies and opportunities for advancement.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science studies often express interest in "attitudes," a term borrowed from psychology. In psychology, attitude research has an established methodological and theoretical base, which we briefly summarize here. We then review implementation studies designed to measure attitudes and compare their definitions and methods with those from psychology. METHODS: A recent review identified 46 studies empirically examining factors associated with implementation. For each of these studies, we evaluated whether authors included attitudes as a construct of interest, and if so, whether and how the construct was defined, measured, and analyzed. RESULTS: Most of the articles (29/46 [63%]) mention attitudes as an implementation factor. Six articles include a definition of the construct. Nineteen studies were designed to measure attitudes but lacked clarity in describing how attitudes were measured. Those that explained their measurement approach used methods that differed from one another and from validated methods in social psychology. Few articles described associated analyses or provided results specific to attitudes. Despite the lack of specificity regarding relevant measurement, analysis, and results, the articles often included causal conclusions about the role of attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes may be an important construct to implementation scientists, but studies to date are ambiguous in their definitions of attitudes and inconsistent in the methods used to measure and analyze attitudes. We discuss how implementation studies can apply psychology's standardized definitions, validated measurement approaches, and causal models that include attitudes. This application of attitude theory and methods could offer implementation research valuable scientific opportunities.

Rather than inducing psychological reactance, requiring vaccination strengthens intentions to vaccinate in US populations.

In a survey and three experiments (one preregistered with a nationally representative sample), we examined if vaccination requirements are likely to backfire, as commonly feared. We investigated if relative to encouraging free choice in vaccination, requiring a vaccine weakens or strengthens vaccination intentions, both in general and among individuals with a predisposition to experience psychological reactance. In the four studies, compared to free choice, requirements strengthened vaccination intentions across racial and ethnic groups, across studies, and across levels of trait psychological reactance. The results consistently suggest that fears of a backlash against vaccine mandates may be unfounded and that requirements will promote COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the United States.

The Perceived Impact of COVID-19 among Treatment-Seeking Smokers: A Mixed Methods Approach.

The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on behavioral health, including tobacco use, are not fully known. The current study sought to measure the perceived impact of COVID-19 and the resulting stay-at-home orders in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Buffalo, New York on smokers enrolled in four smoking cessation trials between March 2020 and July 2020. The survey collected quantitative data regarding life changes due to COVID-19, health/exposure status, and the impact on their cessation attempt (e.g., motivation to quit, change in triggers). The questionnaire collected qualitative data to better understand how such changes could explain changes in smoking behavior. Of the 42 participants surveyed, approximately half indicated that COVID-19 changed their motivation and ability to quit or remain quit. Among those who reported that it was easier to quit following the stay-at-home orders (n = 24), most attributed this to concerns regarding the severity of COVID-19 among smokers. Among those who reported more difficulty quitting (n = 15), most attributed this to their increased stress due to the pandemic and the inability to access activities, places, or people that could help them manage triggers. Given public health warnings of continued surges in COVID-19, these data provide insight into who may benefit from further smoking cessation support should existing restrictions or new stay-at-home orders be enacted.

Understanding therapists' perceived determinants of trauma narrative use.

BACKGROUND: Trauma narratives are a critical, exposure-based component of trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, yet community therapists rarely use them. Given evidence that intentions to deliver elements of cognitive behavioral therapy vary by component, and that intentions to deliver exposure are the weakest, this study focused specifically on trauma narratives. We drew on a social psychology causal theory (Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)) and an implementation science framework (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)) to glean insight into multilevel influences on trauma narrative use. While the CFIR offers a broad list of factors potentially affecting implementation, the TPB offers causal pathways between individual-level constructs that predict behavior, including the uptake of an evidence-based intervention. The integration of these approaches may provide a more complete understanding of factors affecting therapists' use of TNs. METHODS: Therapists (n=65) trained in trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy completed a survey about their use of and beliefs about trauma narratives. Content analysis was used to identify common beliefs about trauma narratives. A subset of participants (n=17) completed follow-up qualitative interviews, which were analyzed using an integrated approach informed by the CFIR. RESULTS: While most participants reported high intentions to use TNs, nearly half reported that they did not use TNs in the last 6 months. Survey data indicate a number of TPB-related determinants related to using trauma narratives. Qualitative interviews identified CFIR-relevant contextual factors that may influence constructs central to TPB. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the importance of integrating approaches that address multiple theoretical determinants of therapist behavior, including therapist, organizational, and client factors with causal explanations to explain implementation behavior.

Assessing Causal Pathways and Targets of Implementation Variability for EBP use (Project ACTIVE): a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Advancing causal implementation theory is critical for designing tailored implementation strategies that target specific mechanisms associated with evidence-based practice (EBP) use. This study will test the generalizability of a conceptual model that integrates organizational constructs and behavioral theory to predict clinician use of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques in community mental health centers. CBT is a leading psychosocial EBP for psychiatric disorders that remains underused despite substantial efforts to increase its implementation. METHODS: We will leverage ongoing CBT implementation efforts in two large public health systems (Philadelphia and Texas) to recruit 300 mental health clinicians and 600 of their clients across 40 organizations. Our primary implementation outcomes of interest are clinician intentions to use CBT and direct observation of clinician use of CBT. As CBT comprises discrete components that vary in complexity and acceptability, we will measure clinician use of six discrete components of CBT. After finishing their CBT training, participating clinicians will complete measures of organizational and behavior change constructs delineated in the model. Clinicians also will be observed twice via audio recording delivering CBT with a client. Within 48 h of each observation, theorized moderators of the intention-behavior gap will be collected via survey. A subset of clinicians who report high intentions to use CBT but demonstrate low use will be purposively recruited to complete semi-structured interviews assessing reasons for the intention-behavior gap. Multilevel path analysis will test the extent to which intentions and determinants of intention predict the use of each discrete CBT component. We also will test the extent to which theorized determinants of intention that include psychological, organizational, and contextual factors explain variation in intention and moderate the association between intentions and CBT use. DISCUSSION: Project ACTIVE will advance implementation theory, currently in its infancy, by testing the generalizability of a promising causal model of implementation. These results will inform the development of implementation strategies targeting modifiable factors that explain substantial variance in intention and implementation that can be applied broadly across EBPs.