Comparing preferences to evaluations of barrier self-efficacy for two strength training programs in US older adults.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Engagement in regular physical activity is one of the best strategies for older adults to remain healthy. Unfortunately, only 35% of older adults meet guidelines for muscle strengthening activities. Eliciting participant preferences is one possible way to improve physical activity engagement. However, other sources of participant input to improve uptake and maintenance remain uninvestigated. This study compared preferences to self-efficacy ratings for two strength training programs. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 611 US adults over age 65. We compared two participant evaluations (the preferred program and the program for which they had higher barrier self-efficacy) of two hypothetical strength training programs (45 minutes performed three times per week (traditional) and 5 minutes performed daily (brief)). RESULTS: Most participants (68%) preferred the brief strength training program. The difference in self-efficacy ratings was an average of 1.2 (SD = 0.92). One in five participants preferred a strength training program for which they had less self-efficacy; nearly all of these participants (92%) preferred the traditional strength training program but had more self-efficacy for the brief strength training program. CONCLUSION: Older adults reported preferring and having more self-efficacy for a brief compared to a traditional strength training program. Differences in self-efficacy ratings between the two strength training programs were large. Preferences were often not congruent with ratings of self-efficacy. SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATIONS: Preferences for strength training programming may not always reflect the program most likely to be maintained. Future investigations should evaluate differences in behavioral uptake, maintenance, and outcomes from two comparative strength training interventions using preferences and self-efficacy.

Comparison of the Scope of Practice of the Army Combat Medic Specialist and Civilian National EMS Certification Levels.

INTRODUCTION: The transition of Army Combat Medic Specialists (Military Occupational Specialty Code: 68W) from military to civilian emergency medical services (EMS) is challenging, and the pathway is not clearly defined. Our objective was to evaluate the current military requirements for 68W and how they compare to the 2019 EMS National Scope of Practice Model (SoPM) for the civilian emergency medical technician (EMT) and advanced emergency medical technician (AEMT). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional evaluation of the 68W skill floor as defined by the Soldier's Manual and Trainer's Guide Healthcare Specialist and Medical Education and Demonstration of Individual Competence in comparison to the 2019 SoPM, which categorizes EMS tasks into seven skill categories. Military training documents were reviewed and extracted for specific information on military scope of practice and task-specific training requirements. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Army 68Ws were noted to perform all (59/59) tasks that coincide with the EMT SoPM. Further, Army 68W practiced above scope in the following skill categories: airway/ventilation (3 tasks); medication administration route (7 tasks); medical director approved medication (6 tasks); intravenous initiation maintenance fluids (4 tasks); and miscellaneous (1 task). Army 68W perform 96% (74/77) of tasks aligned with the AEMT SoPM, excluding tracheobronchial suctioning of an intubated patient, end-tidal CO2 monitoring or waveform capnography, and inhaled nitrous oxide monitoring. Additionally, the 68W scope included six tasks that were above the SoPM for AEMT; airway/ventilation (2 tasks); medication administration route (2 tasks); and medical director approved medication (2 tasks). CONCLUSIONS: The scope of practice of U.S. Army 68W Combat Medics aligns well with the civilian 2019 Scope of Practice Model for EMTs and AEMTs. Based on the comparative scope of practice analysis, transitioning from Army 68W Combat Medic to civilian AEMT would require minimal additional training. This represents a promising potential workforce to assist with EMS workforce challenges. Although aligning the scope of practice is a promising first step, future research is needed to assess the relationship of Army 68Ws training with state licensure and certification equivalency to facilitate this transition.

National examination of occupational hazards in emergency medical services.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians operate in environments that predispose them to occupational hazards. Our objective was to evaluate the frequency of occupational hazards and associations with mitigation strategies in a national dataset. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of currently working, nationally certified civilian EMS clinicians aged 18-85 in the USA. After recertifying their National EMS Certification, respondents were invited to complete a survey with questions regarding demographics, work experience and occupational hazards. Three multivariable logistic regression models (OR, 95% CI) were used to describe associations between these hazards and demographics, work characteristics and mitigation strategies. Models were adjusted for age, sex, minority status, years of experience, EMS agency type, service type and EMS role. RESULTS: A total of 13 218 respondents met inclusion criteria (response rate=12%). A high percentage of EMS clinicians reported occupational injuries (27%), exposures (38%) and violence (64%) in the past 12 months. Odds of injury were lower with the presence of a lifting policy (0.73, 0.67-0.80), lift training (0.74, 0.67-0.81) and always using a powered stretcher (0.87, 0.78-0.97). Odds of exposure decreased with chemical, biological and nuclear exposure protection training (0.75, 0.69-0.80). Training in de-escalation techniques was associated with lower odds of experiencing violence (0.87, 0.79-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Occupational hazards are commonly experienced among EMS clinicians. Common mitigation efforts are associated with lower odds of reporting these hazards. Mitigation strategies were not widespread and associated with lower odds of occupational hazards. These findings may present actionable items to reduce occupational hazards for EMS clinicians.

Evaluating changes in the emergency medical services workforce: A preliminary multistate study.

Objective: There is growing concern with the strength and stability of the emergency medical services (EMS) workforce with reports of workforce challenges in many communities in the United States. Our objective was to estimate changes in the EMS workforce by evaluating the number of clinicians who enter, stay, and leave. Methods: A 4-year retrospective cohort evaluation of all certified EMS clinicians at the emergency medical technician (EMT) level or higher was conducted for 9 states that require national EMS certification to obtain and maintain EMS licensure. The study spanned 2 recertification cycles (2017-2021) for 2 workforce populations: the certified workforce (all EMS clinicians certified to practice) and the patient care workforce (the subset who reported providing patient care). Descriptive statistics were calculated and classified into 1 of 3 categories: EMS clinicians who entered, stayed in, or left each respective workforce population. Results: There were 62,061 certified EMS clinicians in the 9 included states during the study period, and 52,269 reported providing patient care. For the certified workforce, 80%-82% stayed in and 18%-20% entered the workforce. For the patient care workforce, 74%-77% stayed and 29%-30% entered. State-level rates of leaving each workforce ranged from 16% to 19% (certified) and 19% to 33% (patient care). From 2017 to 2020, there was a net growth of both the certified (8.8%) and patient care workforces (7.6%). Conclusions: This was a comprehensive evaluation of both the certified and patient care EMS workforce dynamics in 9 states. This population-level evaluation serves as the first step for more detailed analyses to better understand workforce dynamics in EMS.

Paramedic educational program attrition accounts for significant loss of potential EMS workforce.

Objective: Recent concerns for the strength and stability of the emergency medical services (EMS) workforce have fueled interest in enhancing the entry of EMS clinicians into the workforce. However, the educational challenges associated with workforce entry remain unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the educational pathway of entry into the EMS workforce and to identify factors that lead to the loss of potential EMS clinicians. Methods: This is a cross-sectional evaluation of all US paramedic educational programs, with enrolled students, in the 2019 Committee on Accreditation of Educational Programs for the EMS Professions annual report survey. This data set includes detailed program characteristics and metrics including program attrition rate (leaving before completion), and certifying exam pass rates. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between high program attrition rates (>30%) and program specific characteristics. Results: In 2019, 640 accredited programs met inclusion with 17,457 students enrolled in paramedic educational programs. Of these, 13,884 students successfully graduated (lost to attrition, 3,573/17,457 [21%]) and 12,002 passed the certifying exam on the third attempt (lost to unable to certify, 1,882/17,457 [11%]). High program attrition rates were associated with longer programs (>12 months), small class sizes (<12 students), and regional locations. Conclusions: Nearly 1 in 3 paramedic students were lost from the potentially available workforce either owing to attrition during the educational program or failure to certify after course completion. Attrition represented the largest loss, providing an avenue for future targeted research and interventions to improve EMS workforce stability.

State Requirements for Medical Directors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The requirements for emergency medical services (EMS) medical directors are commonly defined by state rules and regulations without national standardization. The extent of variability in the requirements to be an EMS medical director in the US is unclear. The objective of this study is to describe the state requirements to function as an EMS medical director in the US. METHODS: This was an evaluation of the rules and statutes governing the current requirements to function as an agency-level EMS medical director and defined tasks in the US. Regulations and governmental statutes were reviewed from 50 states and the District of Columbia using publicly available governmental websites focusing on the specific qualifications required to work as an EMS medical director and perform the associated tasks. Data were tabulated, and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Data were available and extracted for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Being a licensed physician is the minimum requirement in 50 states (50/51, 98%). One state, Montana, allows for medical direction by a licensed physician or physician assistant. Board certification in emergency medicine is required by 8% (4/51). No state requires EMS subspecialty certification. The majority of states require that EMS medical directors participate in EMS oversight (76%), EMS clinician training (71%), protocol development (67%), and quality improvement and assurance (65%). CONCLUSIONS: Requirements for EMS medical direction across the US are not standardized. Many states require a medical license, but emergency medicine board certification is not a common requirement. Future work will need to focus on required competencies for EMS medical direction to set clear standards and educational requirements in the US.

Differences in Characteristics between EMS Clinicians with Patient Care and Non-Patient Care Roles.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency medical services (EMS) play a key role in access to prehospital emergency care. While EMS has defined levels of certification, the roles in the care paradigm fulfilled by these clinicians vary. The aim of this study is to describe the national differences between EMS clinicians with primary non-patient care vs. patient care roles. METHODS: We performed a cross sectional evaluation of nationally certified EMS clinicians in the United States who recertified in 2020. As part of the recertification process, applicants voluntarily complete profile questions regarding demographic, job, and service characteristics. We compared the characteristics between individuals self-reporting primary patient care roles vs. non-patient care roles. Using logistic regression, we determined independent predictors for having a non-patient care role. RESULTS: In 2020, 126,038 people completed recertification. Of the 96,661 completing the profile, 80,591 (83.4%) indicated that they provided patient care, and 16,070 (16.6%) did not provide patient care as a primary role. Non-patient care personnel were more likely to be older (median 43 years old vs 34 years old), and to have a higher level of education (bachelor's degree or more: OR 2.25, 95%CI [2.13-2.38]) compared with patient care practitioners. Non-patient care personnel were less likely to be female (0.67 [0.64-0.70]) and minorities (OR 0.80 [0.76-0.84]). Non-patient care personnel reported longer work experience (16 years or more: OR 6.30 [5.98-6.64]), were less likely to hold part time positions (OR 0.62 [0.59-0.65]), and were less often attached to more than one agency (OR 0.83 [0.79-0.86]). Non-patient care personnel were less likely to work in rural settings (OR 0.81 [0.78-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: EMS clinicians in non-patient care roles account for 17% of the study population. The odds of performing as a non-patient care practitioner are associated with characteristics related to demographics and workforce experience. Future work will be necessary to identify mechanisms to encourage diversity within the patient care and non-patient care workforces.

Impact of COVID-19 on initial emergency medical services certification in the United States.

Objective: As the COVID-19 pandemic began, there were significant concerns for the strength and stability of the emergency medical services (EMS) workforce. These concerns were heightened with the closure of examination centers and the cessation of certification examinations. The impact of this interruption on the EMS workforce is unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on initial EMS certification in the United States. In addition, we evaluated mitigation measures taken to address these interruptions. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional evaluation of the National Certification Cognitive Examination administration and results for emergency medical technician (EMT) and paramedic candidates. We compared the number of examinations administered and first-attempt pass rates in 2020 (pandemic) to 2019 (control). Descriptive statistics and 2 one-sided tests of equivalence were used to assess if there was a relevant difference of ±5 percentage points. Results: Total number of examinations administered decreased by 15% (EMT, 14%; paramedic, 7%). Without the addition of EMT remote proctoring, the EMT reduction would have been 35%. First-time pass rates were similar in both EMT (-0.9%) and paramedic (-1.9%) candidates, which did not meet our threshold of a relevant difference. Conclusion: COVID-19 has had a measurable impact on examination administration for both levels of certification. First-time pass rates remained unaffected. EMT remote proctoring mitigated some of the impact of COVID-19 on examination administration, although a comparison with mitigation was not assessed. These reductions indicate a potential decrease in the newly certified workforce, but future evaluations will be necessary to assess the presence and magnitude of this impact.

The COVID-19 vaccine concerns scale: Development and validation of a new measure.

Reasons for COVID-19 hesitancy are multi-faceted and tend to differ from those for general vaccine hesitancy. We developed the COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns Scale (CVCS), a self-report measure intended to better understand individuals' concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. We validated the scale using data from a convenience sample of 2,281 emergency medical services providers, a group of professionals with high occupational COVID-19 risk. Measures included the CVCS items, an adapted Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale, a general vaccine hesitancy scale, demographics, and self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status. The CVCS had high internal consistency reliability (α = .89). A one-factor structure was determined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA), resulting in a seven-item scale. The model had good fit (X2[14] = 189.26, p < .001; CFI = .95, RMSEA = .11 [.09, .12], NNFI = .93, SRMR = .03). Moderate Pearson correlations with validated scales of general vaccine hesitancy (r = .71 , p < .001; n = 2144) and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (r = .82; p < .001; n = 2279) indicated construct validity. The CVCS predicted COVID-19 vaccination status (B = -2.21, Exp(B) = .11 [95% CI = .09, .13], Nagelkerke R2 = .55), indicating criterion-related validity. In sum, the 7-item CVCS is a reliable and valid self-report measure to examine fears and concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. The scale predicts COVID-19 vaccination status and can be used to inform efforts to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

An Opportunity to Understand Concerns about COVID-19 Vaccination: Perspectives from EMS Professionals.

Some healthcare professionals, including emergency medical service (EMS) professionals, remain hesitant about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. This study sought to understand EMS professionals' perspectives regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Using open-ended comments from a national survey deployed electronically to over 19,000 EMS professionals in April of 2021, we examined perspectives about acceptance of and hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines. Survey comments revealed differences in perspectives between vaccinated and unvaccinated EMS professionals regarding their personal role in improving public health through COVID-19 vaccination as well as vaccine benefits and the protection conferred by vaccination. Unvaccinated individuals also expressed concerns over the research and development of the COVID-19 vaccines that led to their decision not to get vaccinated. Individuals who were vaccinated suggested ways to increase uptake of the vaccine including having healthcare professionals serve as leaders for vaccination and educating individuals about COVID-19 vaccination through credible resources. Vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge to achieving herd immunity to COVID-19 through vaccination, even among healthcare professionals. Understanding the perspectives of those who have chosen not to be vaccinated can help direct strategies to reduce confusion and concerns. The perspectives of vaccinated individuals may also be valuable in identifying opportunities to promote vaccination in the professional setting.

Closing the Gap on COVID-19 Vaccinations in First Responders and Beyond: Increasing Trust.

Although COVID-19 vaccines are widely available in the U.S. and much of the world, many have chosen to forgo this vaccination. Emergency medical services (EMS) professionals, despite their role on the frontlines and interactions with COVID-positive patients, are not immune to vaccine hesitancy. Via a survey conducted in April 2021, we investigated the extent to which first responders in the U.S. trusted various information sources to provide reliable information about COVID-19 vaccines. Those vaccinated generally trusted healthcare providers as a source of information, but unvaccinated first responders had fairly low trust in this information source-a group to which they, themselves, belong. Additionally, regardless of vaccination status, trust in all levels of government, employers, and their community as sources of information was low. Free-response explanations provided some context to these findings, such as preference for other COVID-19 management options, including drugs proven ineffective. A trusted source of COVID-19 vaccination information is not readily apparent. Individuals expressed a strong desire for the autonomy to make vaccination decisions for themselves, as opposed to mandates. Potential reasons for low trust, possible solutions to address them, generalizability to the broader public, and implications of low trust in official institutions are discussed.

COVID-19 Vaccinations in EMS Professionals: Prevalence and Predictors.

Background: Immunizations for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals during pandemics are an important tool to increase the safety of the workforce as well as their patients. The purpose of this study was to better understand EMS professionals' decisions to receive or decline a COVID-19 vaccine.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationally certified EMS professionals (18-85 years) in April 2021. Participants received an electronic survey asking whether they received a vaccine, why or why not, and their associated beliefs using three validated scales: perceived risk of COVID-19, medical mistrust, and confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine. Data were merged with National Registry dataset demographics. Analyses included descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression (OR, 95% CI). Multivariate imputation by chained equations was used for missingness.Results: A total of 2,584 respondents satisfied inclusion criteria (response rate = 14%). Overall, 70% of EMS professionals were vaccinated. Common reasons for vaccination among vaccinated respondents were to protect oneself (76%) and others (73%). Common reasons for non-vaccination among non-vaccinated respondents included concerns about vaccine safety (53%) and beliefs that vaccination was not necessary (39%). Most who had not received the vaccine did not plan to get it in the future (84%). Hesitation was most frequently related to wanting to see how the vaccine was working for others (55%). Odds of COVID-19 vaccination were associated with demographics including age (referent <28 years; 39-50 years: 1.56, 1.17-2.08; >51 years: 2.22, 1.64-3.01), male sex (1.26, 1.01-1.58), residing in an urban/suburban area (referent rural; 1.36, 1.08-1.70), advanced education (referent GED/high school and below; bachelor's and above: 1.72, 1.19-2.47), and working at a hospital (referent fire-based agency; 1.53, 1.04-2.24). Additionally, vaccination odds were significantly higher with greater perceived risk of COVID-19 (2.05, 1.68-2.50), and higher vaccine confidence (2.84, 2.40-3.36). Odds of vaccination were significantly lower with higher medical mistrust (0.54, 0.46-0.63).Conclusion: Despite vaccine availability, not all EMS professionals had been vaccinated. The decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with demographics, beliefs regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine, and medical mistrust. Efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Association between Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Physical Activity among Breast Cancer Survivors: A Longitudinal Study.

This study examines the association between rates of change in daily fruit and vegetable intake and in weekly levels of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) over a 15-month period in women following primary treatment completion for breast cancer. Breast cancer survivors (N = 199) self-reported fruit and vegetable intake and wore an accelerometer for 7 consecutive days to measure levels of MVPA on five occasions every 3 months. Multivariate latent growth modeling revealed that the rate of change in fruit and vegetable intake was not associated with the rate of change in levels of MVPA. Baseline (Mean = 3.46 months post-treatment) levels of MVPA were not associated with the rate of change of daily fruit and vegetable intake; likewise, baseline fruit and vegetable intake was not associated with the rate of change in levels of MVPA. Behavioral interventions promoting fruit and vegetable intake should not be assumed to yield concomitant effects in promoting MVPA or vice versa.