Barriers and Facilitators to Optimal Fluoride Varnish Application.

OBJECTIVE: National guidelines recommend that all children under age six receive fluoride varnish (FV) in medical settings. However, application rates remain low. This study aimed to update understanding of barriers and facilitators to guideline concordant FV application. METHODS: We conducted virtual semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample (eg, FV application rates, geographic location, practice size and type) of pediatric primary care clinicians and medical assistants in Massachusetts between February 1 and June 30, 2022. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) served as the study's theoretical framework and data were analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Of the 31 participants, 90% identified as White and 81% as female. Major themes, which linked to four CFIR domains, included: variation in perceived adequacy of reimbursement; differences in FV application across practice types; variation in processes, protocols, and priorities; external accountability for quality of care; and potential levers for change. Important subthemes included challenges for small practices; role of quality measures in delivering guideline-concordant preventive oral health care; and desire for preventive care coordination with dentists. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that potential barriers and facilitators to guideline concordant FV application exist at multiple levels that may warrant further study. Examples include testing the effectiveness of quality measures for FV application and testing strategies for implementing consistent processes and protocols for improving FV application rates.

Communication of COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media by Physicians in the US.

Importance: Approximately one-third of the more than 1 100 000 confirmed COVID-19-related deaths as of January 18, 2023, were considered preventable if public health recommendations had been followed. Physicians' propagation of misinformation about COVID-19 on social media and other internet-based platforms has raised professional, public health, and ethical concerns. Objective: To characterize (1) the types of COVID-19 misinformation propagated by US physicians after vaccines became available, (2) the online platforms used, and (3) the characteristics of the physicians spreading misinformation. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection during the study window to define misinformation, structured searches of high-use social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Parler, and YouTube) and news sources (The New York Times, National Public Radio) were conducted to identify COVID-19 misinformation communicated by US-based physicians between January 2021 and December 2022. Physicians' state of licensure and medical specialty were identified. The number of followers for each physician on 4 major platforms was extracted to estimate reach and qualitative content analysis of the messages was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures included categories of COVID-19 misinformation propagated, the number and traits of physicians engaged in misinformation propagation, and the type of online media channels used to propagate misinformation and potential reach. Results: The propagation of COVID-19 misinformation was attributed to 52 physicians in 28 different specialties across all regions of the country. General misinformation categories included vaccines, medication, masks, and other (ie, conspiracy theories). Forty-two physicians (80.8%) posted vaccine misinformation, 40 (76.9%) propagated information in more than 1 category, and 20 (38.5%) posted misinformation on 5 or more platforms. Major themes identified included (1) disputing vaccine safety and effectiveness, (2) promoting medical treatments lacking scientific evidence and/or US Food and Drug Administration approval, (3) disputing mask-wearing effectiveness, and (4) other (unsubstantiated claims, eg, virus origin, government lies, and other conspiracy theories). Conclusions and Relevance: In this mixed-methods study of US physician propagation of COVID-19 misinformation on social media, results suggest widespread, inaccurate, and potentially harmful assertions made by physicians across the country who represented a range of subspecialties. Further research is needed to assess the extent of the potential harms associated with physician propagation of misinformation, the motivations for these behaviors, and potential legal and professional recourse to improve accountability for misinformation propagation.