RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization stresses the need for tailored COVID-19 models of vaccination to meet the needs of diverse populations and ultimately reach high rates of vaccination. However, little evidence exists on how COVID-19 models of vaccination operated in the novel context of the pandemic, how vulnerable populations, such as refugees, experience COVID-19 vaccination systems in high-income countries, and what lessons may be learned from vaccination efforts with vulnerable populations. To address this gap, this study explored COVID-19 vaccine delivery models available to newcomer refugees and immigrants, and refugee experiences across different COVID-19 vaccine delivery models in Calgary, Canada, and surrounding area in 2021 and 2022, to understand the barriers, strengths, and strategies of models to support access to COVID-19 vaccination for newcomer refugees and immigrants. METHODS: Researchers conducted structured interviews with Government Assisted Refugees (n = 39), and semi-structured interviews with Privately Sponsored Refugees (n = 6), private refugee sponsors (n = 3), and stakeholders involved in vaccination systems (n = 13) in 2022. Thematic analysis was conducted to draw out themes related to barriers, strengths, and strategies of vaccine delivery models and the intersections with patient experiences. RESULTS: Newcomer refugee and immigrant focused vaccination models and strategies were explored. They demonstrated how partnerships between organizations, multi-pronged approaches, and culturally responsive services were crucial to navigate ongoing and emergent factors, such as vaccine hesitancy, mandates, and other determinants of under-vaccination. Many vaccination models presented through interviews were not specific to refugees and included immigrants, temporary residents, ethnocultural community members, and other vulnerable populations in their design. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake for newcomer refugees and immigrants, is complex and requires trust, ongoing information provision, and local partnerships to address ongoing and emerging factors. Three key policy implications were drawn. First, findings demonstrated the need for flexible funding to offer outreach, translation, cultural interpretation, and to meet the basic needs of patients prior to engaging in vaccinations. Second, the research showed that embedding culturally responsive strategies within services ensures community needs are met. Finally, collaborating with partners that reflect the diverse needs of communities is crucial for the success of any health efforts serving newcomers.
RESUMEN
Refugee decisions to vaccinate for COVID-19 are a complex interplay of factors which include individual perceptions, access barriers, trust, and COVID-19 specific factors, which contribute to lower vaccine uptake. To address this, the WHO calls for localized solutions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake for refugees and evidence to inform future vaccination efforts. However, limited evidence engages directly with refugees about their experiences with COVID-19 vaccinations. To address this gap, researchers conducted qualitative interviews (N = 61) with refugees (n = 45), sponsors of refugees (n = 3), and key informants (n = 13) connected to local COVID-19 vaccination efforts for refugees in Calgary. Thematic analysis was conducted to synthesize themes related to vaccine perspectives, vaccination experiences, and patient intersections with policies and systems. Findings reveal that refugees benefit from ample services that are delivered at various stages, that are not solely related to vaccinations, and which create multiple positive touch points with health and immigration systems. This builds trust and vaccine confidence and promotes COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Despite multiple factors affecting vaccination decisions, a key reason for vaccination was timely and credible information delivered through trusted intermediaries and in an environment that addressed refugee needs and concerns. As refugees placed trust and relationships at the core of decision-making and vaccination, it is recommended that healthcare systems work through trust and relationships to reach refugees. This can be targeted through culturally responsive healthcare delivery that meets patients where they are, including barrier reduction measures such as translation and on-site vaccinations, and educational and outreach partnerships with private groups, community organizations and leaders.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This paper examines peer recruitment dynamics through respondent driven sampling (RDS) with a sample of injection drug users in Hartford, CT to understand the strategies participants use to recruit peers into a study and the extent to which these strategies may introduce risks above the ethical limit despite safeguards in RDS. METHODS: Out of 526 injection drug users who participated in a mixed-method RDS methodology evaluation study, a nested sample of 61 participants completed an in-depth semi-structured interview at a 2-month follow-up to explore their experiences with the recruitment process. RESULTS: Findings revealed that participants used a variety of strategies to recruit peers, ranging from one-time interactions to more persistent strategies to encourage participation (e.g., selecting peers that can easily be found and contacted later, following up with peers to remind them of their appointment, accompanying peers to the study site, etc.). Some participants described the more persistent strategies as helpful, while some others experienced these strategies as minor peer pressure, creating a feeling of obligation to participate. Narratives revealed that overall, the probability of experiencing study-related risks remains relatively low for most participants; however, a disconcerting finding was that higher study-related risks (e.g., relationship conflict, loss of relationship, physical fights, violence) were seen for recruits who participated but switched coupons or for recruits who decided not to participate in the study and did not return the coupon to the recruiter. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that peer recruitment practices in RDS generally pose minimal risk, but that peer recruitment may occasionally exceed the ethical limit, and that enhanced safeguards for studies using peer recruitment methods are recommended. Suggestions for possible enhancements are described.
