Pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Experiences, Practices, and Attitudes in Rural Primary Care Clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination rates remain low in rural areas. A strong clinician recommendation improves vaccine uptake, but the pediatric COVID-19 vaccine recommendation practices of rural primary care clinicians have not been reported. Our objectives were to describe, among rural Colorado pediatric clinicians: 1) recommendation practices for COVID-19 vaccine compared to influenza and school-entry required vaccines, and 2) personal attitudes. METHODS: From July to October 2023, surveys were distributed to clinicians in rural Colorado identified as pediatric vaccine providers in counties designated as rural through the Colorado Immunization Information System using mail and email. RESULTS: Of 89 survey respondents, 37% of clinicians strongly recommended COVID-19 vaccines for children 6 months-5 years old, compared to 79% for influenza (P = 0.05) and 92% for school-entry required vaccines (P = 0.04). For children 6-11 and 12-17 years old, 43% and 44% of clinicians strongly recommended COVID-19 vaccines, respectively, compared to 71% and 70% for influenza (P < 0.01), and 91% for school-entry required vaccines (P < 0.01). Forty four percent of clinicians agreed that COVID-19 vaccines are important for pediatric patients. The most common clinician-perceived challenges to discussing pediatric COVID-19 vaccines included a lack of parent interest in more information (76% "somewhat" or "strongly" agree), lack of ability to change parents' minds (71%), and concerns that the vaccines are too political (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Most rural Colorado clinicians do not strongly recommend pediatric COVID-19 vaccines compared to influenza and school-entry required vaccines. Efforts to improve pediatric COVID-19 vaccine uptake should aim to strengthen clinicians' recommendations of these vaccines.

Mammography Screening Preferences Among Screening-Eligible Women in Their 40s : A National U.S. Survey.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently changed its recommendation for mammography screening from informed decision making to biennial screening for women aged 40 to 49 years. Although many women welcome this change, some may prefer not to be screened at age 40 years. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a national probability-based U.S. survey to investigate breast cancer screening preferences among women aged 39 to 49 years. DESIGN: Pre-post survey with a breast cancer screening decision aid (DA) intervention. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05376241). SETTING: Online national U.S. survey. PARTICIPANTS: 495 women aged 39 to 49 years without a history of breast cancer or a known BRCA1/2 gene mutation. INTERVENTION: A mammography screening DA providing information about screening benefits and harms and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate. MEASUREMENTS: Screening preferences (assessed before and after the DA), 10-year Gail model risk estimate, and whether the information was surprising and different from past messages. RESULTS: Before viewing the DA, 27.0% of participants preferred to delay screening (vs. having mammography at their current age), compared with 38.5% after the DA. There was no increase in the number never wanting mammography (5.4% before the DA vs. 4.3% after the DA). Participants who preferred to delay screening had lower breast cancer risk than those who preferred not to delay. The information about overdiagnosis was surprising for 37.4% of participants versus 27.2% and 22.9% for information about false-positive results and screening benefits, respectively. LIMITATION: Respondent preferences may have been influenced by the then-current USPSTF guideline. CONCLUSION: There are women in their 40s who would prefer to have mammography at an older age, especially after being informed of the benefits and harms of screening. Women who wanted to delay screening were at lower breast cancer risk than women who wanted screening at their current age. Many found information about the benefits and harms of mammography surprising. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Impact of a patient-centered tool to reduce misconceptions about coronary artery disease and its treatment: The CAD roadmap.

Objective: Health misinformation is common and can lead to harmful behaviors such as medication non-adherence. We assessed the impact of a novel patient educational tool focused on overcoming misconceptions among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: We developed the CAD Roadmap, an educational tool aimed at explaining the disease trajectory and overcoming common disease misconceptions (such as that statin medications are not beneficial). We designed a pilot survey to assess patients' 1) CAD-related knowledge, 2) medication-taking behavior, and 3) acceptability of the Roadmap. Survey participants were recruited online. CAD knowledge scores were compared with repeated measures t-tests. Results: Among 114 patients with CAD (mean age 67 years, 63% male), average CAD-related knowledge was 79.0% pre-test and 89.7% after review of the CAD Roadmap (p < .001). After review of the Roadmap, 24% indicated they planned to take their medications more regularly, 93% agreed it was helpful in understanding medication benefits, and 77% felt more empowered to participate in medical decisions. Conclusion: The CAD Roadmap was evaluated positively, improved disease-related knowledge, and has the potential to improve adherence to treatments. Innovation: Unlike many other interventions, the CAD Roadmap is specifically designed to overcome common misconceptions to improve health behaviors.

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.

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.

Integrating Cost into Shared Decision-Making for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (POCKET-COST-HF): A Trial Providing Out-of-Pocket Costs for Heart Failure Medications during Clinical Encounters.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) often entails substantial out-of-pocket costs that can vary appreciably between patients. This has raised concerns regarding financial toxicity, equity, and adherence to medical therapy. In spite of these concerns, cost discussions in the HFrEF population appear to be rare, partly because out-of-pocket costs are generally unavailable during clinical encounters. In this trial, out-of-pocket cost information is given to patients and clinicians during outpatient encounters with the aim to assess the impact of providing this information on medication discussions and decisions. HYPOTHESIS: Cost-informed decision-making will be facilitated by providing access to patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates at the time of clinical encounter. DESIGN: Integrating Cost into Shared Decision-Making for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (POCKET-COST-HF) is a multicenter trial based at Emory Healthcare and University of Colorado Health. Adapting an existing patient activation tool from the EPIC-HF trial, patients and clinicians are presented a checklist with medications approved for treatment of HFrEF with or without patient-specific out-of-pocket costs (obtained from a financial navigation firm). Clinical encounters are audio-recorded, and patients are surveyed about their experience. The trial utilizes a stepped-wedge cluster randomized design, allowing for each site to enroll control and intervention group patients while minimizing contamination of the control arm. DISCUSSION: This trial will elucidate the potential impact of robust cost disclosure efforts and key information regarding patient and clinician perspectives related to cost and cost communication. It also will reveal important challenges associated with providing out-of-pocket costs for medications during clinical encounters. Acquiring medication costs for this trial requires an involved process and outsourcing of work. In addition, costs may change throughout the year, raising questions regarding what specific information is most valuable. These data will represent an important step towards understanding the role of integrating cost discussions into heart failure care. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04793880.

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.

Assessing and Understanding Reactance, Self-Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation and Information Conflict in Reaction to Overdiagnosis in Mammography Screening: Scale Development and Preliminary Validation.

PURPOSE: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet some people may react to overdiagnosis with doubt and skepticism. The present research assessed 4 related reactions to overdiagnosis: reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, and source derogation (REDS). The degree to which the concept of overdiagnosis conflicts with participants' prior beliefs and health messages (information conflict) was also assessed as a potential antecedent of REDS. We developed a scale to assess these reactions, evaluated how those reactions are related, and identified their potential implications for screening decision making. METHODS: Female participants aged 39 to 49 years read information about overdiagnosis in mammography screening and completed survey questions assessing their reactions to that information. We used a multidimensional theoretical framework to assess dimensionality and overall domain-specific internal consistency of the REDS and Information Conflict questions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed using data randomly split into a training set and test set. Correlations between REDS, screening intentions, and other outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Five-hundred twenty-five participants completed an online survey. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified that Reactance, Self Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation, and Information Conflict represent unique constructs. A reduced 20-item scale was created by selecting 4 items per construct, which showed good model fit. Reactance, Disbelief, and Source Derogation were associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making and the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant. CONCLUSIONS: REDS and Information Conflict are distinct but correlated constructs that are common reactions to overdiagnosis. Some of these reactions may have negative implications for making informed screening decisions. HIGHLIGHTS: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet when provided information about overdiagnosis, some people are skeptical.This research developed a measure that assessed different ways in which people might express skepticism about overdiagnosis (reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, source derogation) and also the perception that overdiagnosis conflicts with prior knowledge and health messages (information conflict).These different reactions are distinct but correlated and are common reactions when people learn about overdiagnosis.Reactance, disbelief, and source derogation are associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making as well as the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant.

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.

Development of a Naturalness Preference Scale.

OBJECTIVE: Naturalness preference can influence important health decisions. However, the literature lacks a reliable way to measure individual differences in naturalness preferences. We fill this gap by designing and validating a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference. METHODS: We conducted 3 studies among Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. In study 1 (N = 451), we created scale items through an iterative process that measured naturalness preference in hypothesized domains. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify items that assess the naturalness preference construct. In study 2 (N = 448), we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and tests of criterion, discriminant, convergent, and incremental validity. In study 3 (N = 607), we confirmed test-retest reliability of the scale and performed additional validity tests. RESULTS: EFA revealed 3 correlated factors consistent with naturalness preference in medicine, food, and household products. The CFA confirmed the 3-factor structure and led to the decision to drop reverse-coded items. The finalized Naturalness Preference Scale (NPS) consists of 20 items and 3 subscales: NPS-medicine, NPS-food, and NPS-household products. The NPS demonstrated good test-retest reliability, and subscales had good validity in their respective domains. The NPS-medicine subscale was predictive of the uptake of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine (r = -0.45) and belief in unproven natural COVID remedies and treatments (r = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: The NPS will allow researchers to better assess individual differences in naturalness preference and how they influence decision making and health behaviors. HIGHLIGHTS: This research created and validated a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference in 3 domains: medicine, food, and household products.This study confirms that the strength of the naturalness preference differs in different domains.An important and timely finding is that higher scores in the naturalness preference medical subscale are associated with belief in COVID-19 misinformation and reluctance toward COVID-19 vaccination.

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.

Testing Explanations for Skepticism of Personalized Risk Information.

BACKGROUND: The promise of precision medicine could be stymied if people do not accept the legitimacy of personalized risk information. We tested 4 explanations for skepticism of personalized diabetes risk information. METHOD: We recruited participants (N = 356; Mage = 48.6 [s = 9.8], 85.1% women, 59.0% non-Hispanic white) from community locations (e.g., barbershops, churches) for a risk communication intervention. Participants received personalized information about their risk of developing diabetes and heart disease, stroke, colon cancer, and/or breast cancer (women). Then they completed survey items. We combined 2 items (recalled risk, perceived risk) to create a trichotomous risk skepticism variable (acceptance, overestimation, underestimation). Additional items assessed possible explanations for risk skepticism: 1) information evaluation skills (education, graph literacy, numeracy), 2) motivated reasoning (negative affect toward the information, spontaneous self-affirmation, information avoidance); 3) Bayesian updating (surprise), and 4) personal relevance (racial/ethnic identity). We used multinomial logistic regression for data analysis. RESULTS: Of the participants, 18% believed that their diabetes risk was lower than the information provided, 40% believed their risk was higher, and 42% accepted the information. Information evaluation skills were not supported as a risk skepticism explanation. Motivated reasoning received some support; higher diabetes risk and more negative affect toward the information were associated with risk underestimation, but spontaneous self-affirmation and information avoidance were not moderators. For Bayesian updating, more surprise was associated with overestimation. For personal relevance, belonging to a marginalized racial/ethnic group was associated with underestimation. CONCLUSION: There are likely multiple cognitive, affective, and motivational explanations for risk skepticism. Understanding these explanations and developing interventions that address them will increase the effectiveness of precision medicine and facilitate its widespread implementation.

Parental Nonadherence to Health Policy Recommendations for Prevention of COVID-19 Transmission Among Children.

This survey study assesses whether parents had ever engaged in specific misrepresentation and nonadherence behaviors regarding public health measures for preventing COVID-19 transmission among children.

Danish Women Want to Participate in a Hypothetical Breast Cancer Screening with Harms and No Reduction in Mortality: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Informed decision making is recommended in breast cancer screening. Decision aids with balanced information on harms and benefits are recommended to support informed decision making. However, informed screening decision making may be challenged by overly positive attitudes toward cancer screening. We hypothesized that a substantial proportion of Danish women would want to participate in screening regardless of the presented information. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of Danish women wanting to participate in a hypothetical breast cancer screening offering no reduction in breast cancer mortality but potential harms related to unnecessary treatment. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, we invited a random sample of 751 women in the nonscreening population aged 44 to 49 y in the Central Denmark Region to an online questionnaire using the official digital mailbox system. The questionnaire included a description of a hypothetical screening and questions about thoughts on breast cancer, health literacy, and questions on the assessment of the hypothetical screening including intended participation, understanding, and belief in information. Data were linked to register data on sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: In total, 43.0% (323/751) responded to the questionnaire. Of these, 247 (82.3% [95% confidence interval: 77.5-86.5]) wanted to participate in the hypothetical breast cancer screening (participation group). More than two-thirds in both the participation group and nonparticipation group seemed to understand the presented information. Half of the women who understood the information disbelieved it. CONCLUSIONS: Exceeding our expectations, a majority of women wanted to participate in a hypothetical screening with potential harms but no reduction in breast cancer mortality. A large proportion understood but disbelieved the screening information. This could indicate that Danish women make their screening decisions based on beliefs rather than presented screening information. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04509063). HIGHLIGHTS: The majority of Danish women wanted to participate in a hypothetical breast cancer screening with potential harms related to unnecessary treatment but no reduction in mortality.A large proportion of women understood but disbelieved the hypothetical screening information.Informed decision making may be challenging when women disbelieve the information they receive.Enthusiasm for cancer screening and potential disbelief in information are important factors when developing and improving screening information and invitation.

Operating on Anxiety: Negative Affect toward Breast Cancer and Choosing Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM)-removal of the healthy breast following breast cancer diagnosis-have increased, particularly among women for whom CPM provides no survival benefit. Affective (i.e., emotional) decision making is often blamed for this increase. We studied whether greater negative breast cancer affect could motivate uptake of CPM through increased cancer risk perceptions and biased treatment evaluations. METHODS: We randomly assigned healthy women with average breast-cancer risk (N = 1030; Mage = 44.14, SD = 9.23 y) to 1 of 3 affect conditions (negative v. neutral v. positive narrative manipulation) in a hypothetical online experiment in which they were asked to imagine being diagnosed with cancer in one breast. We assessed 1) treatment choice, 2) affect toward CPM, and 3) perceived risk of future breast cancer in each breast (cancer affected and healthy) following lumpectomy, single mastectomy, and CPM. RESULTS: The manipulation caused women in the negative and neutral narrative conditions (26.9% and 26.4%, respectively) to choose CPM more compared with the positive narrative condition (19.1%). Across conditions, women's CPM affect did not differ. However, exploratory analyses addressing a possible association of affect toward cancer-related targets suggested that women in the negative narrative condition may have felt more positively toward CPM than women in the positive narrative condition. The manipulation did not have significant effects on breast cancer risk perceptions. LIMITATIONS: The manipulation of affect had a small effect size, possibly due to the hypothetical nature of this study and/or strong a priori knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer and its treatment options. CONCLUSION: Increased negative affect toward breast cancer increased choice of CPM over other surgical options and might have motivated more positive affective evaluations of CPM. HIGHLIGHTS: This study used narratives to elicit different levels of negative integral affect toward breast cancer to investigate the effects of affect on breast cancer treatment choices.Increased negative affect toward breast cancer increased the choice of double mastectomy over lumpectomy and single mastectomy to treat a hypothetical, early-stage cancer.The narrative manipulation of negative affect toward breast cancer did not change the perceived risks of future cancer following any of the surgical interventions.Negative affect toward breast cancer may have biased affective evaluations of double mastectomy.

Factors Associated With Clinician Self-Reported Resource Use in Acute Care and Ambulatory Pediatrics.

The objective of this study is to determine predictors of resource use among pediatric providers for common respiratory illnesses. We surveyed pediatric primary care, emergency department (ED)/urgent care (UC), and hospital medicine providers at a free-standing children's hospital system. Five clinical vignettes assessed factors affecting resource use for upper respiratory infections, bronchiolitis, and pneumonia, including provider-type, practice location, tolerance to uncertainty, and medical decision-making behaviors. The response rate was 75.3% (168/223). The ED/UC and primary care providers had higher vignette scores, indicating higher resource use, compared with inpatient providers; advanced practice providers (APPs) had higher vignette scores compared with physicians. In multivariate analysis, being an ED/UC provider, an APP, and greater concern for bad outcomes were associated with higher vignette scores. Overall, provider type and location of practice may predict resource use for children with respiratory illnesses. Interventions targeted at test-maximizing providers may improve quality of care and reduce resource burden.

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.

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.