Association of protective behaviors with SARS-CoV-2 infection: results from a longitudinal cohort study of adults in the San Francisco Bay Area.

PURPOSE: In an effort to decrease transmission during the first years of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials encouraged masking, social distancing, and working from home, and restricted travel. However, many studies of the effectiveness of these measures had significant methodologic limitations. In this analysis, we used data from the TrackCOVID study, a longitudinal cohort study of a population-based sample of 3846 adults in the San Francisco Bay Area, to evaluate the association between self-reported protective behaviors and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Participants without SARS-CoV2 infection were enrolled from August to December 2020 and followed monthly with testing and surveys (median of four visits). RESULTS: A total of 118 incident infections occurred (3.0% of participants). At baseline, 80.0% reported always wearing a mask; 56.0% avoided contact with nonhousehold members some/most of the time; 9.6% traveled outside the state; and 16.0% worked 20 or more hours per week outside the home. Factors associated with incident infection included being Black or Latinx, having less than a college education, and having more household residents. The only behavioral factor associated with incident infection was working outside the home (adjusted hazard ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.02-2.59). CONCLUSIONS: Focusing on protecting people who cannot work from home could help prevent infections during future waves of COVID-19, or future pandemics from respiratory viruses. This focus must be balanced with the known importance of directing resources toward those at risk of severe infections.

Forging a Social Movement to Dismantle Entrenched Power and Liberate Primary Care as a Common Good.

The state of family medicine and primary care in the United States is precarious, afflicted by chronic underinvestment. Family physicians and their allies should not expect different policy outcomes without adopting a different theory of change and tactical approach to reform. I argue: (1) high-quality primary care is a common good, as asserted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; (2) a market-based health system captured by extractive capitalism is inimical to primary care as a common good; (3) professionalism has both aided and constrained family physicians as agents of change for primary care as a common good; and, (4) to actualize primary care as a common good, family physicians must embrace "counterculture professionalism" to join with patients, primary care workers, and other allies in a social movement demanding fundamental restructuring of the health system and democratization of health that takes power back from interests profiting from the status quo and reorients the system to one grounded in healing relationships in primary care. This restructuring should take the form of a publicly financed system of universal coverage for direct primary care, with a minimum of 10% of total US health spending allocated to Primary Care for All.

The Value of Funding a Primary Care Extension Program in the United States.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential of the Primary Care Extension Program to ensure access to high-quality primary care in the US.

A Call to Improve Health by Achieving the Learning Health Care System.

The learning health care system is an aspirational operational model for improving health care by learning from the care being delivered. The model, which has been endorsed by the National Academy of Medicine, aligns naturally with academic health systems, which have a mission to improve care for their communities through research and education. In this scholarly perspective, the authors define the learning health care system concept and its historical relationship to academic health systems; explore opportunities for and barriers to realizing the learning health care system; and propose actions to achieve the learning health care system at the local, regional, and national levels. The authors argue that the learning health care system model is essential to academic medicine's evolution and to achieving the foundational societal mission of academic health systems to advance health through research and education.

COVID-19 Vaccination Perceptions Among Young Adults of Color in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Background: COVID-19 vaccination rates among U.S. young adults, particularly in communities of color, remain lower than other age groups. We conducted a qualitative, community-based participatory study to explore beliefs and attitudes about COVID-19 vaccines among young adults in Black/African American, Latinx, and Asian American or Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Methods: We conducted six focus groups between June and August 2021. Participants were recruited by partnering with community-based organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Focus groups included Black/African American (N=13), Latinx (N=20), and AAPI (N=12) participants between 18 and 30 years of age. Emerging themes were identified using a modified Grounded Theory approach. Results: Prominent themes among all three racial-ethnic groups included mistrust in medical and government institutions, strong conviction about self-agency in health decision-making, and exposure to a thicket of contradictory information and misinformation in social media. Social benefit and a sense of familial and societal responsibility were often mentioned as reasons to get vaccinated. Young adult mistrust had a generational flavor fueled by anger about increasing inequity, the profit-orientation of pharmaceutical companies and health institutions, society's failure to rectify injustice, and pessimism about life prospects. Conclusion: Factors influencing vaccine readiness among Black/African American, Latinx, and AAPI young adults have a distinct generational and life-course texture. Outreach efforts should appeal to young adults' interest in family and social responsibility and the social benefits of vaccination, while being cognizant of the friction mandates pose for young adults' sense of self-agency. Efforts will be most effective coming from trusted messengers with a proven commitment to communities of color and health equity.

Addressing the challenges of conducting community-engaged research during COVID-19: Rapid development and evaluation of a COVID-19 Research Patient and Community Advisory Board (PCAB).

Introduction: We created a COVID-19 Research Patient and Community Advisory Board (PCAB) to provide patient and community input into clinical and translational research studies. The purpose of this article is to describe the PCAB creation, implementation, and evaluation. Methods: We identified PCAB members who had participated in previous stakeholder engaged activities at our institution and invited their participation. We created a systematic consultation process where researchers could submit plain language research summaries and questions for the PCAB. A facilitated 1-hour virtual consultation was then held where PCAB members provided feedback. We assessed satisfaction of PCAB members and researchers who received consultations using surveys. We also reviewed video recordings of PCAB consultations and reflections from team meetings to identify key lessons learned. Results: Twenty-seven PCAB members took part in 23 consultation sessions. Twenty-two completed an evaluation survey (81% response rate). Most members agreed or strongly agreed their opinions were valued (86%), it was a productive use of time (86%) and were satisfied (86%). Nineteen researchers completed an evaluation survey (83% response rate). Researchers reported positive experiences of working with the PCAB. Additional insights include limited funding in COVID-19 research for equitable community engagement, deficiencies in researcher communication skills, and a lack of cultural humility incorporated into study activities. Conclusions: PCAB members provided recommendations that maximized the patient-centeredness and health equity focus of COVID-19 research. The detailed description of the process of developing, implementing, and evaluating our PCAB can be used as a template for others wishing to replicate this engagement model.

COVID-19 vaccination readiness among multiple racial and ethnic groups in the San Francisco Bay Area: A qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination rates are lower among historically marginalized populations, including Black/African American and Latinx populations, threatening to contribute to already high COVID-19 morbidity and mortality disparities for these groups. We conducted a community-based participatory research study using qualitative methods to explore knowledge and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination among Black/African American, Latinx, and Chinese American residents of the San Francisco Bay Area and assess their views on vaccination outreach and delivery strategies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data were collected from January 14, 2021, to February 24, 2021, with adult residents (N = 109 [Female: N = 76; 70%]) in San Francisco. Focus groups (N = 10) and in-depth interviews (N = 25) were conducted among Black/African Americans (N = 35), Latinx (N = 40), and Chinese Americans (n = 34) in English, Spanish, Cantonese, or Mandarin. Themes were identified using grounded field theory, and included misinformation, mistrust of government and health institutions, and linguistic and other barriers to vaccine access. All three racial/ethnic groups had experiences with vaccine misinformation and information overload. Many African American and Latinx participants cited structural and interpersonal racism, and anti-immigrant discrimination, as factors reducing their trust in government and public health disseminated information and their willingness to be vaccinated. Participants expressed trust in community-based organizations, including faith-based organizations and community-run clinics. Participants often experienced barriers to vaccine access, such as transportation to drive-in sites, with Latinx and Chinese American groups also frequently citing language barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine outreach strategies must acknowledge how longstanding systemic, institutional, and structural racism contributes to mistrust in government and health institutions and engage with and support trusted messengers from the community to eliminate cultural, linguistic, and other barriers to vaccine access.

Design of a population-based longitudinal cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 incidence and prevalence among adults in the San Francisco Bay Area.

PURPOSE: We describe the design of a longitudinal cohort study to determine SARS-CoV-2 incidence and prevalence among a population-based sample of adults living in six San Francisco Bay Area counties. METHODS: Using an address-based sample, we stratified households by county and by census-tract risk. Risk strata were determined by using regression models to predict infections by geographic area using census-level sociodemographic and health characteristics. We disproportionately sampled high and medium risk strata, which had smaller population sizes, to improve precision of estimates, and calculated a desired sample size of 3400. Participants were primarily recruited by mail and were followed monthly with PCR testing of nasopharyngeal swabs, testing of venous blood samples for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antigens, and testing of the presence of neutralizing antibodies, with completion of questionnaires about socio-demographics and behavior. Estimates of incidence and prevalence will be weighted by county, risk strata and sociodemographic characteristics of non-responders, and will take into account laboratory test performance. RESULTS: We enrolled 3842 adults from August to December 2020, and completed follow-up March 31, 2021. We reached target sample sizes within most strata. CONCLUSIONS: Our stratified random sampling design will allow us to recruit a robust general population cohort of adults to determine the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Identifying risk strata was unique to the design and will help ensure precise estimates, and high-performance testing for presence of virus and antibodies will enable accurate ascertainment of infections.

Race-ethnicity and COVID-19 Vaccination Beliefs and Intentions: A Cross-Sectional Study among the General Population in the San Francisco Bay Area.

OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to compare intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccination by race-ethnicity, to identify beliefs that may mediate the association between race-ethnicity and intention to receive the vaccine and to identify the demographic factors and beliefs most strongly predictive of intention to receive a vaccine. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted from November 2020 to January 2021, nested within a longitudinal cohort study of the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 among a general population-based sample of adults in six San Francisco Bay Area counties (called TrackCOVID). Study Cohort: In total, 3161 participants among the 3935 in the TrackCOVID parent cohort responded. RESULTS: Rates of high vaccine willingness were significantly lower among Black (41%), Latinx (55%), Asian (58%), Multi-racial (59%), and Other race (58%) respondents than among White respondents (72%). Black, Latinx, and Asian respondents were significantly more likely than White respondents to endorse lack of trust of government and health agencies as a reason not to get vaccinated. Participants' motivations and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination only partially explained racial-ethnic differences in vaccination willingness. Concerns about a rushed government vaccine approval process and potential bad reactions to the vaccine were the two most important factors predicting vaccination intention. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine outreach campaigns must ensure that the disproportionate toll of COVID-19 on historically marginalized racial-ethnic communities is not compounded by inequities in vaccination. Efforts must emphasize messages that speak to the motivations and concerns of groups suffering most from health inequities to earn their trust to support informed decision making.

Lower Likelihood of Burnout Among Family Physicians From Underrepresented Racial-Ethnic Groups.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether physician race and ethnicity were associated with burnout among a nationally representative sample of family physicians. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional observational study using survey data from 1,510 American Board of Family Medicine recertification applicants in 2017 and 1,586 respondents to the 2017 National Graduate Survey. Of the 3,096 total family physicians, 450 (15%) were from racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine. We used structural equation models to test the effects of underrepresented status on single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. RESULTS: Family physicians underrepresented in medicine were significantly less likely than their non-underrepresented counterparts to report emotional exhaustion (adjusted odds ratio = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99; total effect) and depersonalization (adjusted odds ratio = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; total effect). The underrepresented physicians were more likely than non-underrepresented peers to practice in more racially and ethnically diverse counties and less likely to practice obstetrics, both of which partly mediated the protective effect of underrepresented status on depersonalization. CONCLUSIONS: Although factors such as racism might be expected to adversely affect the well-being of underrepresented clinicians, underrepresented family physicians reported a lower frequency of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. The mediating protective effect of working in more racially and ethnically diverse counties is consistent with evidence of the beneficial effect of cultural diversity on health outcomes for minorities. Because physician burnout is a known predictor of job turnover and may also be associated with poorer quality of care, the lower burnout observed among underrepresented family physicians may be an asset for the health care system as a whole.

Primary Care Clinician Burnout and Engagement Association With Clinical Quality and Patient Experience.

BACKGROUND: Burnout and engagement are commonly conceptualized as opposite ends of a spectrum, and there is concern that high clinician burnout and lack of engagement may adversely impact patient care. METHODS: We matched self-reported data on burnout and engagement for 182 primary care clinicians with data on clinical quality (cancer screenings, hypertension and diabetes control) and patient experience (Clinician and Group Survey-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems [CG-CAHPS] communication scores, overall rating, and likelihood to recommend the clinic). Multivariable linear regression models examined burnout, engagement, or burnout-engagement phenotype (eg, high burnout-low engagement) as predictors of quality and patient experience. RESULTS: One-third of clinicians in this sample did not fall along the spectrum of low burnout-high engagement to high burnout-low engagement. Neither burnout nor engagement on their own was associated with quality or patient experience measures. However, clinicians with high burnout who also were highly engaged had the highest average ratings for all 3 patient experience domains: clinician communication, overall rating of the clinician, and overall rating of the clinic. DISCUSSION: The results of our study challenge the assumptions that burnout and engagement are opposite ends of a spectrum and that burnout or low engagement adversely impact quality of care and patient experience. Greater understanding is needed of how best to support dedicated clinicians who may provide quality care at the expense of their personal well-being.

It should not require a pandemic to make community engagement in research leadership essential, not optional.

Efforts to move community engagement in research from marginalized to mainstream include the NIH requiring community engagement programs in all Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how little these efforts have changed the dominant culture of clinical research. When faced with the urgent need to generate knowledge about prevention and treatment of the novel coronavirus, researchers largely neglected to involve community stakeholders early in the research process. This failure cannot be divorced from the broader context of systemic racism in the US that has contributed to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities bearing a disproportionate toll from COVID-19, being underrepresented in COVID-19 clinical trials, and expressing greater hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination. We call on research funders and research institutions to take decisive action to make community engagement obligatory, not optional, in all clinical and translational research and to center BIPOC communities in this process. Recommended actions include funding agencies requiring all research proposals involving human participants to include a community engagement plan, providing adequate funding to support ongoing community engagement, including community stakeholders in agency governance and proposal reviews, promoting racial and ethnic diversity in the research workforce, and making a course in community engaged research a requirement for Masters of Clinical Research curricula.

Sponsoring Institution Interests, Not National Plans, Shape Physician Workforce in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Graduate medical education (GME) determines the composition and distribution of the physician workforce in the United States. Federal and state governments heavily subsidize GME but in most cases do not tie subsidies to national or state physician workforce goals. As a result, GME sponsoring institutions (eg, teaching hospitals, schools of medicine, federally qualified health centers) decide how many and what type of physicians to train. The objective of this study was to better understand the factors that influence decision-making by sponsoring institutions. METHODS: Between May and December 2018, we interviewed 35 national or state GME policy leaders and an additional 26 GME leaders from a purposive sample of four sponsoring institutions. We analyzed interviews following a conventional content analysis approach to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: When considering investing in GME, we found that sponsoring institutions do not consider national or statewide workforce recommendations. Instead, they weigh multiple factors of concern to their institution, including public GME subsidies, market competition, potential clinical revenues, academic stature, local workforce demands, as well as their own organization's mission/culture, staffing, financial reserves, educational leadership, teaching resources, and size. CONCLUSIONS: Unless and until the incentives for sponsoring institutions are strongly aligned with national and state physician workforce priorities based on public need, progress on creating a more balanced physician workforce will not occur.