Trust in Healthcare during COVID-19 in Europe: vulnerable groups trust the least

Predicting the intention to receive the COVID-19 booster vaccine based on the health belief model

COVID-19 vaccine boosters are recommended because the protection provided by previous doses eventually decreases, posing a threat to immunity. Some people, however, remain hesitant or unwilling to get vaccinated. The present study sought to investigate factors associated with the intention to receive the COVID-19 booster vaccine based on (1) the constructs of the Health Belief Model, and (2) trust in healthcare workers and science. A sample of 165 adults with two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine were recruited using convenience sampling. Data was collected using an online survey from November 2021 to January 2022. The survey included questions about participants' socio-demographic details, health beliefs, trust, history of COVID-19 vaccination, and the intention to receive a third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Ordinal logistic regression analysis showed that higher perceived benefits, severity, and trust in healthcare workers, and lower perceived barriers predicted higher willingness to get a third dose of the vaccine whereas perceived susceptibility and trust in science did not. Understanding the factors and health beliefs that underlie vaccine hesitancy are vital when developing effective interventions with the aim of increasing uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines.

Population confidence in the health system in 15 countries: results from the first round of the People's Voice Survey

Population confidence is essential to a well functioning health system. Using data from the People's Voice Survey-a novel population survey conducted in 15 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries-we report health system confidence among the general population and analyse its associated factors. Across the 15 countries, fewer than half of respondents were health secure and reported being somewhat or very confident that they could get and afford good-quality care if very sick. Only a quarter of respondents endorsed their current health system, deeming it to work well with no need for major reform. The lowest support was in Peru, the UK, and Greece-countries experiencing substantial health system challenges. Wealthy, more educated, young, and female respondents were less likely to endorse the health system in many countries, portending future challenges for maintaining social solidarity for publicly financed health systems. In pooled analyses, the perceived quality of the public health system and government responsiveness to public input were strongly associated with all confidence measures. These results provide a post-COVID-19 pandemic baseline of public confidence in the health system. The survey should be repeated regularly to inform policy and improve health system accountability.

Shared decision making and medication adherence in patients with COPD and/or asthma: the ANANAS study

Background: Medication adherence to inhalation medication is suboptimal in patients with COPD and asthma. Shared decision making (SDM) is proposed as an intervention to improve medication adherence. Despite its wide promotion, evidence of SDM's association with greater medication adherence is scarce. Also, it is unknown to what degree patients presently experience SDM and how it is associated with medication adherence. Objective: To (i) assess the level of SDM and (ii) medication adherence, (iii) explore the relation between SDM and medication adherence and iv) investigate possible underlying mechanisms. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study. A survey was distributed among Dutch patients with COPD and/or asthma using inhaled medication. Medication adherence was measured using the Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI-10), and SDM by the 9-item Shared Decision-Making questionnaire (SMD-Q-9). Feeling of competence, relatedness and feeling of autonomy from the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) were considered as possible mechanisms. The primary outcome was adherence. Results: A total of 396 patients with complete information on relevant covariates were included. Mean SDM-Q-9 score was 26.7 (SD 12.1, range 0-45) and complete adherence was 41.2%. The odds ratio for the association of SDM with adherence was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.02). This only changed minimally when adjusted for mediators (mediating effect <3%). Conclusion: The patient experienced level of SDM in daily practice and medication adherence have room for improvement. No association between SDM and medication adherence was observed. Factors related to feeling of competence, relatedness and feeling of autonomy did not meaningfully explain this finding.

Correlation between religion, spirituality and perception of healthcare services utilisation in Poland during COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The worldwide transmission of SARS CoV-2 caused the COVID-19 pandemic and had an impact on healthcare provision. The disruption of reliance on the health system during the COVID-19 pandemic posed a clear threat to public trust. Religiosity, like spirituality, is believed to have a positive influence on people's lives, enabling them to cope with illness, stress, and sudden life changes. In practice, although the terms religiosity and spirituality have similar meanings and are related, they are not identical concepts. The aim of this study is to compare the perceptions of the accessibility and quality of healthcare services provided before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland by religious/spiritual people compared to those for whom religion and spirituality have little or no importance in their lives.

Methodology

This cross-sectional study was based on the authors' questionnaire, carried out during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland. Participants in the study were people living in various regions of Poland over 18 who were willing to complete the questionnaire voluntarily. The number of people sampled was two hundred and sixty-four. Convenience sampling method was used for this study. Statistical calculations were performed using Statistica 13 software from TIBCO and PQStat from PQStat Software and were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test, multiple regression model, the chi2 test of independence or the Mann-Whitney test. The result was considered statistically significant when p < α. The significance level was taken as α = 0.05.

Results

Two hundred and sixty-three respondents answered the questionnaire. Among them, 181 (69%) were women, and 82 (31%) were men. It was shown that religion is more important for women than for men and women who report a high role of religion in their lives rated the quality of healthcare services better before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also concluded that religious people for whom religion played a major role and those who were helped by spiritual life rated accessibility and quality higher both before and during the pandemic.

Conclusions

Religious/spiritual people, through their more positive attitudes towards the world, were thought to rate access and quality of healthcare services better. Regardless of religious affiliation, the help of spiritual life during the pandemic or the importance of religion in life in all respondents, perception of healthcare services utilisation were decreased by the pandemic. This prompts thoughts on the implementation of spiritual assistance as a supportive measure to mitigate the effects of the pandemic.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry

Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting “Decisional Uncertainty” provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for “Decisional Conflicts” included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.

Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making

Background: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. Study Design: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. Methods: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. Results: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. Conclusions: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.

A pyramid model to describe changing decision making under high uncertainty during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic put healthcare systems, hospitals and medical personal under great pressure. Based on observations in Germany, we theorise a general model of rapid decision-making that makes sense of the growing complexity, risks and impact of missing evidence. While adapting decision-making algorithms, management, physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals had to move into uncharted territory while addressing practical challenges and resolving normative (legal and ethical) conflicts. During the pandemic, this resulted in decisional uncertainties for healthcare professionals. We propose an idealised risk-based model that anticipates these shifts in decision-making procedures and underlying value frameworks. The double pyramid model visualises foreseeable procedural adaptations. This does not only help practitioners to secure operational continuity in a crisis but also contributes to improving the conceptual underpinnings of the resilience of healthcare during the next pandemic or similar future crises situations.

Evidence-based guiding principles to build public trust in personal data use in health systems

Objective

Public trust in health systems is pivotal for their effective and efficient functioning. In particular, public trust is essential for personal data use, as demonstrated in debates in many countries, for example, about whether data from COVID-19 contact tracing apps should be pooled or remain on individuals’ smartphones. Low levels of public trust pose a risk not only to health system legitimacy but can also harm population health.

Methods

Synthesising our previous qualitative and theoretical research in the English National Health Service which enabled us to conceptualise the nature of public trust in health systems, we present guiding principles designed to rebuild public trust, if lost, and to maintain high levels of public trust in personal data use within the health system, if not.

Results

To build public trust, health system actors need to not rush trust building; engage with the public; keep the public safe; offer autonomy to the public; plan for diverse trust relationships; recognise that trust is shaped by both emotion and rational thought; represent the public interest; and work towards realising a net benefit for the health system and the public.

Conclusions

Beyond policymakers and government officials, the guiding principles address a wide range of actors within health systems so that they can work collectively to build public trust. The guiding principles can be used to inform policymaking in health and health care and to analyse the performance of different governments to see if those governments that operate in greater conformity with the guiding principles perform better.