"There's a little bit of mistrust": Red River Métis experiences of the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics.

We examined the perspectives of the Red River Métis citizens in Manitoba, Canada, during the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics and how they interpreted the communication of government/health authorities' risk management decisions. For Indigenous populations, pandemic response strategies play out within the context of ongoing colonial relationships with government institutions characterized by significant distrust. A crucial difference between the two pandemics was that the Métis in Manitoba were prioritized for early vaccine access during H1N1 but not for COVID-19. Data collection involved 17 focus groups with Métis citizens following the H1N1 outbreak and 17 focus groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. Métis prioritization during H1N1 was met with some apprehension and fear that Indigenous Peoples were vaccine-safety test subjects before population-wide distribution occurred. By contrast, as one of Canada's three recognized Indigenous nations, the non-prioritization of the Métis during COVID-19 was viewed as an egregious sign of disrespect and indifference. Our research demonstrates that both reactions were situated within claims that the government does not care about the Métis, referencing past and ongoing colonial motivations. Government and health institutions must anticipate this overarching colonial context when making and communicating risk management decisions with Indigenous Peoples. In this vein, government authorities must work toward a praxis of decolonization in these relationships, including, for example, working in partnership with Indigenous nations to engage in collaborative risk mitigation and communication that meets the unique needs of Indigenous populations and limits the potential for less benign-though understandable-interpretations.

Can you un-ring the bell? A qualitative study of how affect influences cancer screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: The belief that early detection is the best protection against cancer underlies cancer screening. Emerging research now suggests harms associated with early detection may sometimes outweigh the benefits. Governments, cancer agencies, and organizations that publish screening guidelines have found it is difficult to "un-ring the bell" on the message that "early detection is your best protection" because of its widespread communication and enduring resonance. This study explores affective factors-and their interplay with relevant analytical factors-in public/laypersons' decision making about cancer screening. METHODS: A total of 93 people (47 men, 46 women) attended focus groups about, respectively, prostate cancer screening and breast cancer screening in two Canadian cities. RESULTS: Affective factors were a major influence on many focus group participants' decision making about cancer screening, including fear of cancer and a generalized enthusiasm for prevention/screening, and they were often inspired by anecdotes about the cancer experiences of family and friends. Affect also existed alongside more analytical factors including assessments of reduced risk in the management of any cancer diagnosis if caught early, and, for men, the belief that an unreliable test is "better than nothing," and that men deserve prostate cancer screening because women have breast and cervical cancer screening. Affective factors were particularly noticeable in the sub-groups most supportive of screening and the "early detection" message: older women who felt that mammogram screening should begin at age 40 rather than 50, and older men who felt that prostate cancer screening should be expanded beyond its current unorganized, opportunistic usage. In contrast, younger participants displayed less affective attachments to "early detection" messages and had greater concerns about harms of screening and were more receptive to nuanced messages informed by evidence. CONCLUSION: Policymakers attempting to communicate more nuanced versions of the "early detection" message need to understand the role of affect alongside other judgments brought into laypersons' decision making processes and anticipate how affective responses to their messages will be shaped, transformed, and potentially subverted by external forces beyond their control. Particularly overt external factors are campaigns by cancer advocacy organizations actively promoting breast and prostate cancer awareness and screening to younger women and men using affectively-charged messages.

Caught in a no-win situation: discussions about CCSVI between persons with multiple sclerosis and their neurologists - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, shared decision making (SDM) has been promoted as a model to guide interactions between persons with MS and their neurologists to reach mutually satisfying decisions about disease management - generally about deciding treatment courses of prevailing disease modifying therapies. In 2009, Dr. Paolo Zamboni introduced the world to his hypothesis of Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI) as a cause of MS and proposed venous angioplasty ('liberation therapy') as a potential therapy. This study explores the discussions that took place between persons with MS (PwMS) and their neurologists about CCSVI against the backdrop of the recent calls for the use of SDM to guide clinical conversations. METHODS: In 2012, study researchers conducted focus groups with PwMS (n = 69) in Winnipeg, Canada. Interviews with key informants were also carried out with 15 participants across Canada who were stakeholders in the MS community: advocacy organizations, MS clinicians (i.e. neurologists, nurses), clinical researchers, and government health policy makers. RESULTS: PwMS reported a variety of experiences when attempting to discuss CCSVI with their neurologist. Some found that there was little effort to engage in desired discussions or were dissatisfied with critical or cautious stances of their neurologist. This led to communication breakdowns, broken relationships, and decisions to autonomously access alternative opinions or liberation therapy. Other participants were appreciative when clinicians engaged them in discussions and were more receptive to more critical appraisals of the evidence. Key informants reported that they too had heard of neurologists who refused to discuss CCSVI with patients and that neurology as a whole had been particularly vilified for their response to the hypothesis. Clinicians indicated that they had shared information as best they could but recommended against seeking liberation therapy. They noted that being respectful of patient emotions, values, and hope were also key to maintaining good relationships. CONCLUSIONS: While CCSVI proved a challenging context to carry out patient-physician discussions and brought numerous tensions to the surface, following the approach of SDM can minimize the potential for unfortunate outcomes as much as possible because it is based on principles of respect and more two-way communication.

Factors influencing H1N1 vaccine behavior among Manitoba Metis in Canada: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, Aboriginal populations in Canada experienced disproportionate rates of infection, particularly in the province of Manitoba. To protect those thought to be most at-risk, health authorities in Manitoba listed all Aboriginal people, including Metis, among those able to receive priority access to the novel vaccine when it first became available. Currently, no studies exist that have investigated the attitudes, influences, and vaccine behaviors among Aboriginal communities in Canada. This paper is the first to systematically connect vaccine behavior with the attitudes and beliefs that influenced Metis study participants' H1N1 vaccine decision-making. METHODS: Researchers held focus groups (n = 17) with Metis participants in urban, rural, and remote locations of Manitoba following the conclusion of the H1N1 pandemic. Participants were asked about their vaccination decisions and about the factors that influenced their decisions. Following data collection, responses were coded into the broad categories of a social-ecological model, nuanced by categories stemming from earlier research. Responses were then quantified to show the most influential factors in positively or negatively affecting the vaccine decision. RESULTS: Media reporting, the influence of peer groups, and prioritization all had positive and negative influential effects on decision making. Whether vaccinated or not, the most negatively influential factors cited by participants were a lack of knowledge about the vaccine and the pandemic as well as concerns about vaccine safety. Risk of contracting H1N1 influenza was the biggest factor in positively influencing a vaccine decision, which in many cases trumped any co-existing negative influencers. CONCLUSIONS: Metis experiences of colonialism in Canada deeply affected their perceptions of the vaccine and pandemic, a context that health systems need to take into account when planning response activities in the future. Participants felt under-informed about most aspects of the vaccine and the pandemic, and many vaccine related misconceptions and fears existed. Recommendations include leveraging doctor-patient interactions as a site for sharing vaccine-related knowledge, as well as targeted, culturally-appropriate, and empowering public information strategies to supply reliable vaccine and pandemic information to potentially at-risk Aboriginal populations.

Communication about childhood obesity on Twitter.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the use of social media as a tool for health communication. We used a mixed-methods design to examine communication about childhood obesity on Twitter. METHODS: NodeXL was used to collect tweets sent in June 2013 containing the hashtag #childhoodobesity. Tweets were coded for content; tweeters were classified by sector and health focus. Data were also collected on the network of follower connections among the tweeters. We used descriptive statistics and exponential random graph modeling to examine tweet content, characteristics of tweeters, and the composition and structure of the network of connections facilitating communication among tweeters. RESULTS: We collected 1110 tweets originating from 576 unique Twitter users. More individuals (65.6%) than organizations (32.9%) tweeted. More tweets focused on individual behavior than environment or policy. Few government and educational tweeters were in the network, but they were more likely than private individuals to be followed by others. CONCLUSIONS: There is an opportunity to better disseminate evidence-based information to a broad audience through Twitter by increasing the presence of credible sources in the #childhoodobesity conversation and focusing the content of tweets on scientific evidence.

Using the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool to assess and plan for sustainability.

Implementing and growing a public health program that benefits society takes considerable time and effort. To ensure that positive outcomes are maintained over time, program managers and stakeholders should plan and implement activities to build sustainability capacity within their programs. We describe a 3-part sustainability planning process that programs can follow to build their sustainability capacity. First, program staff and stakeholders take the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool to measure their program's sustainability across 8 domains. Next, managers and stakeholders use results from the assessment to inform and prioritize sustainability action planning. Lastly, staff members implement the plan and keep track of progress toward their sustainability goals. Through this process, staff can more holistically address the internal and external challenges and pressures associated with sustaining a program. We include a case example of a chronic disease program that completed the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool and engaged in program sustainability planning.

Are public health organizations tweeting to the choir? Understanding local health department Twitter followership.

BACKGROUND: One of the essential services provided by the US local health departments is informing and educating constituents about health. Communication with constituents about public health issues and health risks is among the standards required of local health departments for accreditation. Past research found that only 61% of local health departments met standards for informing and educating constituents, suggesting a considerable gap between current practices and best practice. OBJECTIVE: Social media platforms, such as Twitter, may aid local health departments in informing and educating their constituents by reaching large numbers of people with real-time messages at relatively low cost. Little is known about the followers of local health departments on Twitter. The aim of this study was to examine characteristics of local health department Twitter followers and the relationship between local health department characteristics and follower characteristics. METHODS: In 2013, we collected (using NodeXL) and analyzed a sample of 4779 Twitter followers from 59 randomly selected local health departments in the United States with Twitter accounts. We coded each Twitter follower for type (individual, organization), location, health focus, and industry (eg, media, government). Local health department characteristics were adopted from the 2010 National Association of City and County Health Officials Profile Study data. RESULTS: Local health department Twitter accounts were followed by more organizations than individual users. Organizations tended to be health-focused, located outside the state from the local health department being followed, and from the education, government, and non-profit sectors. Individuals were likely to be local and not health-focused. Having a public information officer on staff, serving a larger population, and "tweeting" more frequently were associated with having a higher percentage of local followers. CONCLUSIONS: Social media has the potential to reach a wide and diverse audience. Understanding audience characteristics can help public health organizations use this new tool more effectively by tailoring tweet content and dissemination strategies for their audience.

'Stay home and stay safe but maybe you can have somebody over': public perceptions of official COVID-19 messages during the 2020 holiday season in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered extreme preventive measures, including economic and social lockdowns. Many experts and commentators, however, have argued in favor of a harm reduction approach, giving individuals the liberty to assess their risk and potentially engage in risky behavior more safely. Drawing on concepts from harm reduction literature we examine how Canadians interpreted messages intended to mitigate harm during the 2020 end-of-year holiday season. METHODS: We conducted 12 focus groups in four Canadian cities to discuss public health guidance to reduce the spread of COVID-19, how these messages influenced their holiday celebration plans, and how they interpreted harm mitigation messages. RESULTS: Focus group participants (n = 82) described COVID-19 public health guidance as confusing and difficult to follow. Participants considered that messages intended to mitigate harm from official sources would contribute to deepening confusion and uncertainty, allow for personal interpretation of guidelines, and discourage those who follow guidelines diligently. CONCLUSION: Official public health messaging intended to mitigate harm in rapidly evolving crisis situations can be ineffective in reducing risky behaviors because it may instead encourage people to not abide the recommended guidelines. In these situations, harm reduction messaging should be limited to specific groups who cannot otherwise avoid risk exposure.

Strategies used in managing conversations about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing among family physicians (FPs): a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Screening for prostate cancer in healthy asymptomatic men using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is controversial due to conflicting recommendations from and a lack of strong evidence regarding the benefit of population-based screening. In Canada and internationally, there is variability in how family physicians (FPs) approach PSA testing in asymptomatic men. The purpose of our study was to explore how family FPs approach discussions with their male patients around PSA testing in Manitoba, Canada. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: High-ordering and median-ordering FPs were invited to participate in an interview. In addition to exploring practice behaviours around PSA testing, participants were asked to elaborate on their typical discussion with asymptomatic men who request a PSA test or other tests and procedures that they do not feel are clinically warranted. Data were analysed inductively using a constant-comparison approach. RESULTS: There were important variations between high-ordering and median-ordering FP's approaches to discussing PSA testing. Strategies to facilitate conversations were more frequently identified by median-ordering physicians and often included methods to facilitate assessing their patient's understanding and values. In addition to decision aids, median-ordering FPs used motivational interviewing to tailor a discussion, organised their practice structure and workflow habits in a way that enhanced patient-provider discussions and leveraged 'new' evidence and other aids to guide conversations with men. CONCLUSION: We found that high-ordering FPs tended to use the PSA test for screening asymptomatic men with limited shared decision-making. Median-ordering FPs used conversational strategies that emphasised uncertainty of benefit and potential risk and did not present the test as a recommendation.

"They're trying to bribe you and taking away your freedoms": COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in communities with traditionally low vaccination rates.

Vaccination is an essential public health intervention to control the COVID-19 pandemic. A minority of Canadians, however, remain hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, while others outright refuse them. We conducted focus groups to gauge perceptions and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines in people who live in a region with historically low rates of childhood vaccination. Participants discussed their perception of COVID-19 vaccines and their intention to get vaccinated, and the low rate of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Manitoba's Southern Health Region compared to other regions in Canada. We identified three drivers of vaccine hesitancy: (1) risk perceptions about COVID-19 and the vaccines developed to protect against it, (2) religious and conservative views; and (3) distrust in government and science. Participant proposed recommendations for improving communication and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines included: public health messages emphasising the benefits of vaccination; addressing the community's specific concerns and dispelling misinformation; highlighting vaccine safety; and emphasising vaccination as a desirable behaviour from a religious perspective. Understanding the specific anxieties elicited by COVID-19 vaccines in areas with low childhood immunization rates can inform risk communication strategies tailored to increase vaccination in these specific regions. This study adds important information on potential reasons for vaccine hesitancy in areas with historically low rates of childhood vaccination, and provides important lessons learned for future emergencies in terms of vaccine hesitancy drivers and effective risk communication to increase vaccine uptake.