Rural and urban residents' attitudes and preferences toward COVID-19 prevention behaviors in a midwestern community.

Rural populations are more vulnerable to the impacts of COVID-19 compared to their urban counterparts as they are more likely to be older, uninsured, to have more underlying medical conditions, and live further from medical care facilities. We engaged the Southeastern MN (SEMN) community (N = 7,781, 51% rural) to conduct a survey of motivators and barriers to masking to prevent COVID-19. We also assessed preferences for types of and modalities to receive education/intervention, exploring both individual and environmental factors primarily consistent with Social Cognitive Theory. Our results indicated rural compared to urban residents performed fewer COVID-19 prevention behaviors (e.g. 62% rural vs. 77% urban residents reported wearing a mask all of the time in public, p<0.001), had more negative outcome expectations for wearing a mask (e.g. 50% rural vs. 66% urban residents thought wearing a mask would help businesses stay open, p<0.001), more concerns about wearing a mask (e.g. 23% rural vs. 14% urban were very concerned about being 'too hot', p<0.001) and lower levels of self-efficacy for masking (e.g. 13.9±3.4 vs. 14.9±2.8, p<0.001). It appears that masking has not become a social norm in rural SEMN, with almost 50% (vs. 24% in urban residents) disagreeing with the expectation 'others in my community will wear a mask to stop the spread of Coronavirus'. Except for people (both rural and urban) who reported not being at all willing to wear a mask (7%), all others expressed interest in future education/interventions to help reduce masking barriers that utilized email and social media for delivery. Creative public health messaging consistent with SCT tailored to rural culture and norms is needed, using emails and social media with pictures and videos from role models they trust, and emphasizing education about when masks are necessary.

Cardiologist Evaluation and Approval Was the Primary Predictor of Kidney Transplant Candidacy and Transplantation Among Patients With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

End-stage kidney disease patients with concomitant heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction are often denied kidney transplantation. The aims of this study were to explore factors predictive of suitability for kidney transplant and to assess cardiovascular outcomes in patients with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transplant. Methods: We evaluated 109 consecutive adults with LVEF ≤40% at the time of initial kidney transplant evaluation between 2013 and 2018. Posttransplant cardiovascular outcomes were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), admission for HF, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality. Results: A cardiologist participated in kidney transplant evaluation for 87% of patients and was present at 49% of transplant selection conferences. Twenty-four patients (22%) were denied by a cardiologist for kidney transplant' and 59 (54%) were denied by the selection committee, of whom 43 were because of cardiovascular risk. Forty-two (38%) patients were approved for kidney transplant. On univariate analysis, the variables associated with denial for kidney transplant included cardiologist denial, higher cardiac troponin T, prior coronary intervention, cardiovascular event, positive stress study, lower ejection fraction, and lower VO2 max (all P < 0.05). Cardiologist denial was the most significant predictor of denial for kidney transplant in different multivariate models. At a median follow-up of 15 mo, 5 (5%) suffered nonfatal MI, 13 (12%) were hospitalized for HF exacerbation, and 17 (16%) died. Only 22 patients, 52% of those approved, underwent kidney transplant. After kidney transplant, there was 1 death, 1 nonfatal MI, and 3 hospitalizations for HF. Median LVEF improved from 38% before listing to 55% posttransplant. Conclusions: Cardiologist denial was the primary predictor of rejection for kidney transplant. Despite careful selection, prevalence of cardiovascular events and mortality after kidney transplant was 23%. There is need for a structured multidisciplinary approach for patients with impaired LVEF.