Factors in COVID-19 vaccine uptake in five racial/ethnic Colorado communities: A report from the Colorado CEAL project.

PURPOSE: To understand motivators, concerns, and factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine initiation for adults in five racial/ethnic communities across Colorado. METHODS: Community-based data collectors surveyed participants from five Colorado communities (urban and rural Latina/o/x, urban Black, rural African American immigrant, and urban American Indian) about vaccine attitudes, intentions, and uptake from September to December 2021. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with the primary outcome of COVID-19 vaccine "initiation." RESULTS: Most participants (71.1%) reported having initiated COVID-19 vaccination; vaccine series completion was 65.1%. Both motivators and concerns about COVID-19 vaccines were prevalent. Vaccine hesitancy (OR: 0.41, 95% CI:0.32-0.53; p < .001) and low perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination social norms (OR: 0.48, 95% CI:0.27-0.84; p = .01) were associated with vaccine initiation. CONCLUSION: Despite the limitation of a moderate sample size, our findings support the need for further interventions to increase vaccination against COVID-19 by reducing vaccine hesitancy and improving perceived social norms of vaccination in underserved Colorado communities. IMPLICATIONS: To improve trust in vaccines and promote vaccine uptake, community messaging should be tailored to vaccination motivators and concerns and demonstrate COVID-19 vaccination as the community default.

Supporting Teams with Designing for Dissemination and Sustainability: the Design, Development, and Usability of a Digital Interactive Platform.

Background: The use of Designing for Dissemination and Sustainability (D4DS) principles and methods can support the development of research products (interventions, tools, findings) to match well with the needs and context of the intended audience and setting. D4DS principles and methods are not well-known or used during clinical and public health research; research teams would benefit from applying D4DS. This paper presents the development of a new digital platform for teams to learn and apply a D4DS process to their work. Methods: A user-centered design (UCD) approach engaged users (n=14) and an expert panel (n=6) in an iterative design process from discovery to prototyping and testing. We led five design sessions using Zoom and Figma software over a 5-month period. Users (71% academics; 29% practitioners) participated in at least 2 sessions. Following design sessions, feedback from users were summarized and discussed to generate design decisions. A prototype was then built and heuristically tested with 11 users who were asked to complete multiple tasks within the platform while verbalizing their decision-making using the 'think aloud' procedure. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was administered at the end of each testing session. After refinements to the platform were made, usability was reassessed with 7 of 11 same users to examine changes. Results: The interactive digital platform (the D4DS Planner) has two main components: 1) the Education Hub (e.g., searchable platform with literature, videos, websites) and 2) the Action Planner. The Action Planner includes 7 interactive steps that walk users through a set of activities to generate a downloadable D4DS action plan for their project. Participants reported that the prototype tool was moderately usable (SUS=66) but improved following refinements (SUS=71). Conclusions: This is a first of its kind tool that supports research teams in learning about and explicitly applying D4DS to their work. The use of this publicly available tool may increase the adoption, impact, and sustainment of a wide range of research products. The use of UCD yielded a tool that is easy to use. The future use and impact of this tool will be evaluated, and the tool will continue to be refined and improved.

Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Driven versus Standardized Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management education and support can be effectively and efficiently delivered in primary care in the form of shared medical appointments (SMAs). Comparative effectiveness of SMA delivery features such as topic choice, multi-disciplinary care teams, and peer mentor involvement is not known. OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of standardized and patient-driven models of diabetes SMAs on patient-level diabetes outcomes. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1060 adults with type 2 diabetes in 22 primary care practices. INTERVENTIONS: Practice personnel delivered the 6-session Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum using either standardized (set content delivered by a health educator) or patient-driven SMAs (patient-selected topic order delivered by health educators, behavioral health providers [BHPs], and peer mentors). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included self-reported diabetes distress and diabetes self-care behaviors from baseline and follow-up surveys (assessed at 1st and final SMA session), and HbA1c, BMI, and blood pressure from electronic health records. Analyses used descriptive statistics, linear regression, and linear mixed models. KEY RESULTS: Both standardized and patient-driven SMAs effectively improved diabetes distress, self-care behaviors, BMI (- 0.29 on average), and HbA1c (- 0.45% (mmol/mol) on average, 8.3 to 7.8%). Controlling for covariates, there was a small, significant effect of condition on overall diabetes distress in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,841) = 4.3, p = .04), attributable to significant effects of condition on emotion and regimen distress subscales. There was a small, significant effect of condition on diastolic blood pressure in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,5199) = 4.50, p = .03). There were no other differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Both SMA models using the TTIM curriculum yielded significant improvement in diabetes distress, self-care, and HbA1c. Patient-driven diabetes SMAs involving BHPs and peer mentors and topic selection did not lead to better clinical or patient-reported outcomes than standardized diabetes SMAs facilitated by a health educator following a set topic order. NIH TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT03590041.

Association between monoclonal antibody therapy, vaccination, and longer-term symptom resolution after acute COVID-19.

Effective therapies for reducing post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) symptoms are lacking. Evaluate the association between monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment or COVID-19 vaccination with symptom recovery in COVID-19 participants. The longitudinal survey-based cohort study was conducted from April 2021 to January 2022 across a multihospital Colorado health system. Adults ≥18 years with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were included. Primary exposures were mAb treatment and COVID-19 vaccination. The primary outcome was time to symptom resolution after SARS-CoV-2 positive test date. The secondary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Analysis included 1612 participants, 539 mAb treated, and 486 with ≥2 vaccinations. Time to symptom resolution was similar between mAb treated versus untreated patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.04). Time to symptom resolution was shorter for patients who received ≥2 vaccinations compared to those unvaccinated (aHR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.31-1.88). 28-day hospitalization risk was lower for patients receiving mAb therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.50) and ≥2 vaccinations (aOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.55), compared with untreated or unvaccinated status. Analysis included 1612 participants, 539 mAb treated, and 486 with ≥2 vaccinations. Time to symptom resolution was similar between mAb treated versus untreated patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.04). Time to symptom resolution was shorter for patients who received ≥2 vaccinations compared to those unvaccinated (aHR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.31-1.88). 28-day hospitalization risk was lower for patients receiving mAb therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.50) and ≥2 vaccinations (aOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.55), compared with untreated or unvaccinated status. COVID-19 vaccination, but not mAb therapy, was associated with a shorter time to symptom resolution. Both were associated with lower 28-day hospitalization.

Rapid Community Translation in the Colorado CEAL (CO-CEAL) Program: Transcreating Messaging to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination.

Providing communities with COVID-19 vaccination information is essential for optimizing equitable vaccine uptake. Using rapid community translation, adapted from Boot Camp Translation, five community teams transcreated COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. Transcreated messaging incorporated community attitudes, culture, and experiences. Using rapid community translation for the promotion of COVID-19 vaccination demonstrates a successful approach to engaging communities most affected by the pandemic to develop messages that reflect community values, assets, and needs, especially when time is of the essence. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S1):S50-S54. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307456).

Real-world data to evaluate effects of a multi-level dissemination strategy on access, outcomes, and equity of monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19.

Introduction: Multi-level dissemination strategies are needed to increase equitable access to effective treatment for high-risk outpatients with COVID-19, particularly among patients from disproportionately affected communities. Yet assessing population-level impact of such strategies can be challenging. Methods: In collaboration with key contributors in Colorado, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate a multi-level dissemination strategy for neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment. Real-world data included county-level, de-identified output from a statewide mAb referral registry linked with publicly available epidemiological data. Outcomes included weekly number of mAb referrals, unique referring clinicians, and COVID-19 hospitalization rates. We assessed weekly changes in outcomes after dissemination strategies launched in July 2021. Results: Overall, mAb referrals increased from a weekly average of 3.0 to 15.5, with an increase of 1.3 to 42.1 additional referrals per county in each post-period week (p < .05). Number of referring clinicians increased from a weekly average of 2.2 to 9.7, with an additional 1.5 to 22.2 unique referring clinicians observed per county per week beginning 5 weeks post-launch (p < .001). Larger effects were observed in communities specifically prioritized by the dissemination strategies. There were no observed differences in COVID-19 hospitalization rates between counties with and without mAb treatment sites. Conclusion: Real-world data can be used to estimate population impact of multi-level dissemination strategies. The launch of these strategies corresponded with increases in mAb referrals, but no apparent population-level effects on hospitalization outcomes. Strengths of this analytic approach include pragmatism and efficiency, whereas limitations include inability to control for other contemporaneous trends.