COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Marshallese in Northwest Arkansas (USA).

Background: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected Pacific Islander communities, with disparities in the prevalence of infection, serious illness, and death compared to non-Hispanic whites in the US. Marshallese Pacific Islanders face significant COVID-19 disparities. Design and methods: This exploratory study aimed to understand Marshallese community attitudes about the COVID-19 vaccine to identify and implement culturally relevant strategies to encourage vaccine uptake. Data were collected from 17 participants in three focus groups. Results: Using content analysis, researchers identified two global themes: (1) barriers to vaccination and (2) facilitators of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Within these themes, participants described fear, lack of knowledge about vaccines, negative perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine, health concerns, and transportation as barriers to vaccination. Participants described several factors influencing vaccine behavior, including location of and personnel at vaccine clinics, vaccine experiences, the need for trusted information, positive perceptions, cultural leaders, and mandates. Conclusions: The qualitative study makes a significant contribution as the first to report community perceptions and experiences related to the COVID-19 vaccine in Marshallese participants' own words. Findings show that cultural influencers and brokers are crucial bridges for public health messaging related to COVID-19 vaccination targeted to this vulnerable and underserved population. Culturally appropriate and effective public health messaging can help achieve vaccine equity and improve COVID-19-related health disparities in the Marshallese community.

Heart Disease Knowledge and Awareness in African American and Hispanic Women.

OBJECTIVES: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among US women. Minority women have higher rates of CHD and are more likely to experience adverse outcomes. Because of racial disparities in CHD outcomes, the purpose of this study was to assess CHD knowledge and awareness in African American and Hispanic women. METHODS: Using a survey research design, a convenience sample of African American and Hispanic women was surveyed in their local communities. CHD knowledge, awareness, and demographic data were collected using an online survey. The survey was administered in English and Spanish using an iPad. CHD knowledge was assessed using a 7-item survey based on the American Heart Association's Life's Simple 7 brochure. CHD awareness was assessed using a 7-item survey adapted from the American Heart Association's Survey of Women's Cardiovascular Disease Awareness. CHD knowledge was scored on a scale of 0 to 7, and awareness was assessed based on responses to each question. The data analysis consisted of cross-tabulations and multivariable repeated measures analysis. We assessed differences in CHD knowledge and awareness based on race/ethnicity. We hypothesized that there would be statistically significant differences in CHD knowledge and awareness based on specific demographic factors (eg, age, income, education, health literacy). RESULTS: A total of 100 African American (n=50) and Hispanic (n = 50) women participated in the study. Results revealed that CHD knowledge and awareness were limited for both groups. Seventy-three percent of participants (African American 66%; Hispanic 80%) did not know that CHD is the leading cause of death in women and 75% (African American 60%; Hispanic 90%) were moderately or not at all informed about CHD. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the need for more research on innovative strategies to improve CHD knowledge and awareness, particularly in African American and Hispanic women who are at highest risk, thereby addressing racial/ethnic and gender disparities in CHD morbidity and mortality.

Overcoming barriers and enhancing facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination in the Hispanic community.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic communities in the United States have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and death. Vaccination against COVID-19 is critical for controlling the pandemic; however, higher levels of vaccine hesitancy and reduced vaccine uptake constrain efforts to mitigate the pandemic and could perpetuate disparities. The aim of this study was to understand barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination through the lived experiences of Hispanic persons living in Arkansas. METHODS: Bilingual community partners facilitated recruitment, made initial contact with potential participants, and scheduled interviews and focus groups. Individuals over the age of 18 who identified as Hispanic were invited to participate. Data was collected from 49 participants in 10 individual interviews and five focus groups. This study used a qualitative exploratory design and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five themes emerged as barriers for Hispanic participants: technological literacy and pre-registration, language and literacy, health insurance/health care costs, immigration status, and location and transportation. Three themes emerged as facilitators: workplace vaccination, health care provider recommendations, and engagement through schools. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this study, a multi-modal and flexible approach will be implemented by the authors to address barriers to vaccine uptake among the Hispanic community in Arkansas.

Comparing community-driven COVID-19 vaccine distribution methods: Faith-based organizations vs. outpatient clinics.

Background: Minority and low socioeconomic communities may face practical barriers to vaccination, including decreased access to health care and less trust in healthcare organizations; however, few studies have focused on these barriers as the cause of differential vaccine uptake. We worked with community partners to implement and evaluate two community-driven approaches to COVID-19 vaccination distribution-through faith-based organizations (FBOs) and outpatient clinics-with a focus on understanding the differences between the populations who accessed each distribution method. Methodology: Participants who came to the vaccination locations were approached and asked to complete a survey during their 15 min post-vaccination observation period. Differences between distribution locations were examined using Chi-square tests. Results: The survey rendered 1,476 valid responses, with a total of 927 participants recruited at clinical locations and 519 at FBOs during vaccination events. There were significant differences by race/ethnicity, with distribution methods at FBOs reaching a higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and Marshallese participants. The proportion of uninsured participants who had lower health literacy and had lower educational attainment was higher with the FBO distribution method. FBO participants were more likely to report "completely" trusting the COVID-19 vaccine. There was no significant difference between FBO and clinic participants with regard to the level of vaccine hesitancy. There were no statistically significant differences with regard to access. Conclusion: A higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and Marshallese participants utilized FBOs for vaccination, suggesting collaborations with FBOs can potentially increase vaccination uptake among minority communities and help mitigate vaccination disparities.

Sociodemographic Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy, Fear of Infection, and Protection Self-Efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: Arkansas COVID-19 vaccine uptake has been lower than the national average. This study examined associations between sociodemographic factors and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, fear of infection, and protection self-efficacy. METHODS: Adults either residing, having employment, or receiving health care in Arkansas (n = 754) participated in an online survey between October 30, 2020 and January 16, 2021. Participants were recruited in both rural and urban areas from 6 Arkansas primary care clinics. Survey questions addressed sociodemographic factors, COVID-19 infection fear, protection self-efficacy, and COVID-19 vaccine attitudes. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between dependent variables and respondents' sociodemographic characteristics, COVID-19 infection fear, and COVID-19 protection self-efficacy. RESULTS: About 38% of participants reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Age, sex, race, and education were significantly associated with COVID-19 and general vaccine attitudes. Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy decreased as age increased (OR = 0.98; P < .01). Women had higher odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy than men (OR = 1.52; P < .05). Respondents with a high school diploma and below and respondents with some college or a technical degree had greater odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (OR = 2.58; P < .001; and OR = 1.97; P < .01, respectively) compared to respondents with a 4-year college degree. Black/African American respondents had greater odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to White respondents (OR = 3.08; P < .001). No significant difference was observed among rural and urban respondents regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy; however, respondents in rural areas were more likely to report low general vaccine trust compared to those in urban areas (OR = 1.87; P < .01). Respondents reporting no fear (OR = 5.51; P < .001) and very little fear (OR = 1.95; P < .05) of COVID-19 had greater odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to respondents who feared COVID-19 infection to a great extent. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and general trust in vaccines differ significantly among age, sex, race, and education. These trust and hesitancy patterns are challenges for achieving population immunity and follow similar patterns of vulnerability to COVID-19. Vaccination programs and interventions must consider these differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and general vaccine trust to alleviate COVID-19 disparities. Findings make a significant contribution in evaluating vaccine hesitancy among a large, diverse sample from a rural state.

Arkansans' Preferred COVID-19 Testing Locations.

INTRODUCTION: A contributing factor to racial and ethnic disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic may be the accessibility and acceptability of COVID-19 testing. Previous studies found that access to testing has not been equitable across several sociodemographic indicators. This study documents the preferred testing locations and examines differences across sociodemographic factors with a specific focus on race and ethnicity. METHODS: This study includes a primary analysis of cross-sectional data using a self-administered digital survey distributed to Arkansas residents using ARresearch, a volunteer research participant registry. The survey had 1288 responses, and 1221 met eligibility criteria for inclusion in the survey. Participants provided sociodemographic information and were asked to select up to 3 preferred testing locations from 12 options. Chi-square tests assessed differences in testing site preference across relevant sociodemographic groups. RESULTS: Participants preferred drive-through clinics as their top location for COVID-19 testing, with 55% reporting this was their preferred method of testing. This pattern was consistent across all comparison groups (ie, age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, insurance status). Significant differences in testing location preference were observed across age, race and ethnicity, and education, with the most differences observed across race and ethnicity. CONCLUSION: This study reveals that race and ethnicity are important to consider when deciding where to offer COVID-19 testing. The preferences for testing locations among the most vulnerable demographics will be used to develop targeted responses aimed at eliminating disparities in COVID-19 in Arkansas.

Screening Patients Who Speak Spanish for Low Health Literacy.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate health literacy is a national health problem that affects about 90 million people from all racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Conceptual and empirical models of health literacy position language as one of the most significant contributors to health literacy. OBJECTIVE: A validated Spanish health literacy screening question asks how confident patients are at filling out medical forms, but it does not clarify whether the forms are in English or in Spanish, contributing to ambiguity and potentially affecting validity. The purpose of this study was to compare responses to questions that clarified the language of the forms referenced in the validated screening question; to explore how the clarified items predicted scores on a measure of health literacy; and to compare the predictive ability of the clarified health literacy items to that of a question about patients' self-reported English proficiency. METHODS: Participants who speak Spanish (N = 200) completed the following surveys: Spanish Health Literacy Screening Question that clarified "English forms" (HLSQ-E) and that clarified "Spanish forms" (HLSQ-S), self-reported English proficiency (SEP), demographic questions, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy for Adults Spanish (S-TOFHLA-S), and the Newest Vital Sign-Spanish (NVS-Spanish). KEY RESULTS: Participants reported less confidence with English medical forms than Spanish forms. The sensitivity of screening approaches varied; each predicted inadequate health literacy on the NVS-Spanish and S-TOFHLA-S with different levels of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. In general, the HLSQ-E was a better predictor of inadequate health literacy than the HLSQ-S; however, the SEP performed nearly as well as the HLSQ-E. CONCLUSION: "How confident are you at filling out medical forms in English…" more appropriately identified patients with inadequate health literacy who speak Spanish. Health literacy screening practices should consider the patient's language and the language of the health care system and use questions that are less ambiguous. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(2):e110-e116.]. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This project focused on patients who speak Spanish and who have a hard time understanding health information. We wanted to find out the best ways to identify these patients so that doctors and nurses can be sure to give them information in ways that they can understand. We tested screening questions that can identify these patients.

Predicting coronary heart disease events in women: a longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: More than 240 000 women in the United States die of coronary heart disease annually. Identifying women's symptoms that predict a coronary heart disease event such as myocardial infarction (MI) could decrease mortality. OBJECTIVE: For this longitudinal observational study, we recruited 1097 women, who were either clinician referred or self-referred to a cardiologist and undergoing initial evaluation by a cardiologist, to assess the utility of the prodromal symptoms (PS) section of the McSweeney Acute and Prodromal Myocardial Infarction Symptom Survey (MAPMISS) in predicting the occurrence of cardiac events in women. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-seven women experienced events (angioplasty, stent placement, coronary artery bypass, MI, death) during the 2-year follow up. The most common events were stents alone (38.9%) or in combination with angioplasty (18.2%). Ten women had MIs; 4 experienced cardiac death. Cox proportional hazards was used to model time to event. The prodromal score was significantly associated with risk of an event (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.13), as was the number of PSs endorsed by each woman per visit. After covariate adjustment, 5 symptoms were significantly associated with increased risk: discomfort in jaws/teeth, unusual fatigue, arm discomfort, shortness of breath, and general chest discomfort (hazard ratio, 3.97; 95% confidence interval, 2.32-6.78). Women reporting 1 or more of these symptoms were 4 times as likely to experience a cardiac event as women with none. CONCLUSIONS: Both the MAPMISS PS scores and number of PS were significantly associated with cardiac events, independent of risk factors, suggesting that there are specific PSs that can be easily assessed using the MAPMISS. This instrument could be an important component of a predictive screen to assist clinicians in deciding the course of management for women.

Reliability of the McSweeney Acute and Prodromal Myocardial Infarction Symptom Survey among black and white women.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality rates are higher among women, particularly black, than men. Women's mortality rates may reflect difficulty in recognizing CHD prodromal symptoms (PS) but reliable screening instruments for women are scarce. The McSweeney Acute and Prodromal Myocardial Infarction Symptom Survey (MAPMISS) captures women's PS presentation, but has limited testing among black women. AIM: To assess the test-retest reliability of the MAPMISS PS section for black and white women. METHODS: The sample was recruited from women enrolled in a longitudinal study examining the predictive validity of the MAPMISS. The MAPMISS was re-administered to 42 women (22 white, 20 black) 3-5 days after baseline assessment. RESULTS: Women endorsed an average of 7.5 PS (SD 4.8; range 0-20) initially and 7.6 (SD 4.7; range 0-20) at retest. Over half of the women (54.8%) of both races endorsed the same number of PS at test and retest; for 69%, the number endorsed at both testings differed by no more than one. Percentage agreement and kappa statistics on the number ofPS endorsed were excellent overall and by race. PS test and retest scores, reflecting PS intensity and frequency, were highly correlated overall (r = 0.92, p < 0.001) and separately for white (r = 0.93, p < 0.001) and black women (r = 0.91,p < 0.001). Racial differences were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate (i) the MAPMISS PS score has excellent test-retest reliability (r = 0.92) when administered to women without a history of CHD, and (ii) test-retest reliability is as strong for black (r = 0.91) as for white women (r = 0.93).