Cross-Sectional Survey of Factors Contributing to COVID-19 Testing Hesitancy Among US Adults at Risk of Severe Outcomes from COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises testing individuals for COVID-19 after exposure or if they display symptoms. However, a deeper understanding of demographic factors associated with testing hesitancy is necessary. METHODS: A US nationwide cross-sectional survey of adults with risk factors for developing severe COVID-19 ("high-risk" individuals) was conducted from August 18-September 5, 2023. Objectives included characterizing demographics and attitudes associated with COVID-19 testing. Inverse propensity weighting was used to weight the data to accurately reflect the high-risk adult US population as reflected in IQVIA medical claims data. We describe here the weighted results modeled to characterize demographic factors driving hesitancy. RESULTS: In the weighted sample of 5019 respondents at high risk for severe COVID-19, 58.2% were female, 37.8% were ≥ 65 years old, 77.1% were White, and 13.9% had a postgraduate degree. Overall, 67% were Non-testers (who indicated that they were unlikely or unsure of their likelihood of being tested within the next 6 months); these respondents were significantly more likely than Testers (who indicated a higher probability of testing within 6 months) to be female (60.2 vs. 54.1%; odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.3 [1.1‒1.4]), aged ≥ 65 years old (41.5 vs. 30.3%; OR [95% CI] compared with ages 18‒34 years, 0.6 [0.5‒0.7]), White (82.1 vs. 66.8%; OR [95% CI], 1.4 [1.1‒1.8]), and to identify as politically conservative (40.9 vs. 18.1%; OR [95% CI], 2.6 [2.3‒2.9]). In contrast, Testers were significantly more likely than Non-testers to have previous experience with COVID-19 testing, infection, or vaccination; greater knowledge regarding COVID-19 and testing; greater healthcare engagement; and concerns about COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Older, female, White, rural-dwelling, and politically conservative high-risk adults are the most likely individuals to experience COVID-19 testing hesitancy. Understanding these demographic factors will help guide strategies to improve US testing rates.

Developing, optimizing, and evaluating patient infographics for diagnosing cardiac amyloidosis.

Objective: Advancements in diagnostics and treatment options for cardiac amyloidosis have improved patient outcomes, yet few patient education materials exist to help patients understand the disease and diagnosis process. We sought to develop and evaluate a set of plain language, patient-centered infographics describing the condition and common diagnostic tests. Methods: Using health literacy best practices, we developed 7 infographics which were further revised based on multilevel stakeholder feedback. To evaluate the materials, we recruited 100 patients from healthcare settings in Chicago, IL; participants completed a web-assisted interview during which they were randomized 1:1 to first view either our infographics or a standard material. Participants completed a knowledge assessment on their assigned material and subsequently reported impressions of both materials. Results: No differences were found between study arms in knowledge. The infographics took significantly less time to read and were more highly rated by participants in terms of appearance and understandability. Over two-thirds of participants preferred the infographics to the standard. Conclusions: The infographics created may improve the learning process about a complex condition and diagnosis process unknown to most adults. Innovation: These infographics are the first of their kind for cardiac amyloidosis and were created using health literacy best practices.

Towards a more patient-centered clinical trial process: A systematic review of interventions incorporating health literacy best practices.

BACKGROUND: A 2019 public workshop convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) Roundtable on Health Literacy identified a need to develop evidence-based guidance for best practices for health literacy and patient activation in clinical trials. PURPOSE: To identify studies of health literacy interventions within medical care or clinical trial settings that were associated with improved measures of health literacy or patient activation, to help inform best practices in the clinical trial process. DATA SOURCES: Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and Web of Science from January 2009 to June 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Of 3592 records screened, 22 records investigating 27 unique health literacy interventions in randomized controlled studies were included for qualitative synthesis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data screening and abstraction were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. DATA SYNTHESIS: Types of health literacy interventions were multimedia or technology-based (11 studies), simplification of written material (six studies) and in-person sessions (five studies). These interventions were applied at various stages in the healthcare and clinical trial process. All studies used unique outcome measures, including patient comprehension, quality of informed consent, and patient activation and engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study suggest that best practice guidelines recommend health literacy interventions during the clinical trial process, presentation of information in multiple forms, involvement of patients in information optimization, and improved standardization in health literacy outcome measures.