The Rapid Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccination in Emergency Departments for Underserved Patients Study

Real-Time Electronic Patient Portal Use Among Emergency Department Patients

Importance

Patients with inequitable access to patient portals frequently present to emergency departments (EDs) for care. Little is known about portal use patterns among ED patients.

Objectives

To describe real-time patient portal usage trends among ED patients and compare demographic and clinical characteristics between portal users and nonusers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study of 12 teaching and 24 academic-affiliated EDs from 8 health systems in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington, patient portal access and usage data were evaluated for all ED patients 18 years or older between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022.

Exposure

Use of the patient portal during ED visit.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the weekly proportions of ED patients who logged into the portal, viewed test results, and viewed clinical notes in real time. Pooled random-effects models were used to evaluate temporal trends and demographic and clinical characteristics associated with real-time portal use.

Results

The study included 1 280 924 unique patient encounters (53.5% female; 0.6% American Indian or Alaska Native, 3.7% Asian, 18.0% Black, 10.7% Hispanic, 0.4% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 66.5% White, 10.0% other race, and 4.0% with missing race or ethnicity; 91.2% English-speaking patients; mean [SD] age, 51.9 [19.2] years). During the study, 17.4% of patients logged into the portal while in the ED, whereas 14.1% viewed test results and 2.5% viewed clinical notes. The odds of accessing the portal (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19-1.56), viewing test results (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.30-2.04), and viewing clinical notes (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.19-2.15) were higher at the end of the study vs the beginning. Patients with active portal accounts at ED arrival had a higher odds of logging into the portal (OR, 17.73; 95% CI, 9.37-33.56), viewing test results (OR, 18.50; 95% CI, 9.62-35.57), and viewing clinical notes (OR, 18.40; 95% CI, 10.31-32.86). Patients who were male, Black, or without commercial insurance had lower odds of logging into the portal, viewing results, and viewing clinical notes.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that real-time patient portal use during ED encounters has increased over time, but disparities exist in portal access that mirror trends in portal usage more generally. Given emergency medicine's role in caring for medically underserved patients, there are opportunities for EDs to enroll and train patients in using patient portals to promote engagement during and after their visits.

A Scoping Review on Gender/Sex Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Uptake in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To explore the empirical literature on gender/sex differences in vaccine acceptance among U.S.-based adults and adolescents in approximately the first 2 years of the pandemic.

DATA SOURCE

Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, EBSCO, CINAHL, Web of Science.

STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed studies conducted in the U.S. with those aged 12 and older, published in English before January 12, 2022, examining the relationship between gender/sex on COVID-19 vaccine intentions and/or uptake.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three authors screened studies and extracted data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Univariate and multivariate results are summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 53 studies met inclusion criteria (48 intentions, 7 uptake), using mostly cross-sectional designs (92.5%) and non-random sampling (83.0%). The majority of studies supported men's greater intentions to vaccinate compared to women, and men's greater vaccine uptake in univariate analyses, but most multivariate analyses supported no gender differences in uptake. Few studies examined gender beyond binary categories (women/men), highlighting a gap in the studies inclusive of transgender or gender-diverse populations in analyses.

CONCLUSION

Women may have been more hesitant to get the vaccine than men early in the pandemic, but these differences may not translate to actual behavior. Future research should include non-binary/transgender populations, explore the gender-specific reasons for hesitancy and differences by sub-populations, utilize more rigorous designs, and test gender-sensitive public health campaigns to mitigate vaccine concerns.

Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Under-Vaccination among Marginalized Populations in the United States and Canada: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Amid persistent disparities in Covid-19 vaccination and burgeoning research on vaccine hesitancy (VH), we conducted a scoping review to identify multilevel determinants of Covid-19 VH and under-vaccination among marginalized populations in the U.S. and Canada.

METHODS

Using the scoping review methodology developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute, we designed a search string and explored 7 databases to identify peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2020-October 25, 2022. We combine frequency analysis and narrative synthesis to describe factors influencing Covid-19 VH and under-vaccination among marginalized populations.

RESULTS

The search captured 11,374 non-duplicated records, scoped to 103 peer-reviewed articles. Among 14 marginalized populations identified, African American/Black, Latinx, LGBTQ+, American Indian/Indigenous, people with disabilities, and justice-involved people were the predominant focus. Thirty-two factors emerged as influencing Covid-19 VH, with structural racism/stigma and institutional mistrust (structural)(n = 71) most prevalent, followed by vaccine safety (vaccine-specific)(n = 62), side effects (vaccine-specific)(n = 50), trust in individual healthcare provider (social/community)(n = 38), and perceived risk of infection (individual)(n = 33). Structural factors predominated across populations, including structural racism/stigma and institutional mistrust, barriers to Covid-19 vaccine access due to limited supply/availability, distance/lack of transportation, no/low paid sick days, low internet/digital technology access, and lack of culturally- and linguistically-appropriate information.

DISCUSSION

We identified multilevel and complex drivers of Covid-19 under-vaccination among marginalized populations. Distinguishing vaccine-specific, individual, and social/community factors that may fuel decisional ambivalence, more appropriately defined as VH, from structural racism/structural stigma and systemic/institutional barriers to vaccination access may better support evidence-informed interventions to promote equity in access to vaccines and informed decision-making among marginalized populations.

Impact of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine mandate on parental likelihood to vaccinate children: Exploring school-related concerns and vaccination decision-making

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the impact of a hypothetical school-entry COVID-19 vaccine mandate on parental likelihood to vaccinate their child.

METHODS

We collected demographics, COVID-19-related school concerns, and parental likelihood to vaccinate their child from parents of patients aged 3-16 years seen across nine pediatric Emergency Departments from 06/07/2021 to 08/13/2021. Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared pre- and post-mandate vaccination likelihood. Multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses explored associations between parental concerns with baseline and change in vaccination likelihood, respectively.

RESULTS

Vaccination likelihood increased from 43% to 50% with a hypothetical vaccine mandate (Z = -6.69, p < 0.001), although most parents (63%) had no change, while 26% increased and 11% decreased their vaccination likelihood. Parent concerns about their child contracting COVID-19 was associated with greater baseline vaccination likelihood. No single school-related concern explained the increased vaccination likelihood with a mandate.

CONCLUSION

Parental school-related concerns did not drive changes in likelihood to vaccinate with a mandate.

Survey of Vaccine Hesitancy in Patients Visiting Three Tertiary-care Emergency Departments in Southeast Louisiana

Objectives

Vaccine hesitancy has been a barrier to achieving herd immunity during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Having low socioeconomic status and education levels, and being a person of color, are associated with higher COVID-19 infection risk and worse outcomes. These same groups are associated with higher vaccine hesitancy. The state of Louisiana has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country. In this study we aimed to identify demographic, perspective, and health behavior factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in emergency departments (ED) in Southeast Louisiana.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was distributed at three tertiary-care hospital EDs. Patients >18 years old and not in acute distress were recruited between April-July 2021. The 37-item questionnaire addressed socioeconomic demographics, social determinants of health, COVID-19 safety practices, thoughts and perceptions on COVID-19 and vaccines, sources of COVID-19 and vaccine information, and trust in the healthcare system.

Results

Overall, 247 patients completed our survey. Of those, 29.6% reported they were vaccine hesitant. These respondents were significantly more likely, when compared to vaccine-acceptant respondents, to never have married, to have some college education, make less than <$25,000 in household earnings yearly, be unsure whether vaccines prevent disease, not have discussed the COVID-19 vaccine with their primary care doctor, and to prefer to do their own research for COVID-19 vaccine information. We observed no statistically significant differences based on gender, race/ethnicity, parental status, area of living, or their perceived risk of needing hospitalization for treatment or dying from the virus.

Conclusion

Vaccine hesitancy was associated with multiple socioeconomic factors, perspectives, and beliefs. Vaccine-hesitant individuals were more uncertain about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, the feasibility of obtaining the vaccine, and its efficacy. Public health interventions aimed at these findings and improving public trust in healthcare systems are needed to increase vaccine acceptance.

COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Hesitancy in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Little is known about COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. We sought to determine the uptake of booster vaccines, as well as the prevalence of and reasons for booster hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey study of adult patients at 5 safety-net hospital EDs in 4 US cities from mid-January to mid-July 2022. Participants were fluent in English or Spanish and had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine. We assessed the following parameters: (1) the prevalence of nonboosted status and reasons for not getting a booster; (2) the prevalence of booster vaccine hesitancy and reasons for hesitancy; and (3) the association of hesitancy with demographic variables.

RESULTS

Of 802 participants, 373 (47%) were women, 478 (60%) were non-White, 182 (23%) lacked primary care, 110 (14%) primarily spoke Spanish, and 370 (46%) were publicly insured. Of the 771 participants who completed their primary series, 316 (41%) had not received a booster vaccine; the primary reason for nonreceipt was lack of opportunity (38%). Of the nonboosted participants, 179 (57%) expressed hesitancy, citing need for more information (25%), concerns about side effects (24%), and the belief that a booster was unnecessary after the initial series (20%). In the multivariable analysis, Asian participants were less likely to be booster hesitant than White participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.93), non-English-speaking participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than English-speaking participants (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.71), and Republican participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than Democrat participants (aOR 6.07, 95% CI 4.21 to 8.75).

CONCLUSION

Of almost half of this urban ED population who had not received a COVID-19 booster vaccine, more than one third stated that lack of opportunity to receive one was the primary reason. Furthermore, more than half of the nonboosted participants were booster hesitant, with many expressing concerns or a desire for more information that may be addressed with booster vaccine education.

Assessment of a COVID-19 vaccination protocol for unhoused patients in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing an emergency department (ED)-based Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination protocol in a population of unhoused patients.

METHODS

On June 10, 2021, a best practice alert (BPA) was implemented that fired when an ED provider opened the charts of unhoused patients and prompted the provider to order COVID-19 vaccination for eligible patients. We downloaded electronic medical record data of patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine in the ED between June 10, 2021 and August 26, 2021. The outcomes of interest were the number of unhoused, and the total number of patients vaccinated for COVID-19 during the study period. Data were described with simple descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

There were 25,871 patient encounters in 19,992 unique patients (mean 1.3 visits/patient) in the emergency department during the study period. There were 1,474 (6% of total ED population) visits in 1,085 unique patients who were unhoused (mean 1.4 visits/patient). The BPA fired in 1,046 unhoused patient encounters (71% of PEH encounters) and was accepted in 79 (8%). Forty-three unhoused patients were vaccinated as a result of the BPA (4% of BPA fires) and 18 unhoused patients were vaccinated without BPA prompting. An additional 76 domiciled patients were vaccinated in the ED.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing an ED-based COVID-19 vaccination program is feasible, however, only a small number of patients underwent COVID-19 vaccination. Further studies are needed to explore the utility of using the ED as a setting for COVID-19 vaccination.

Effect of COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging Platforms in Emergency Departments on Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Large segments of the US population's primary health care access occurs in emergency departments (EDs). These groups have disproportionately high COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and lower vaccine uptake.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether provision of COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs increases COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 7 hospital EDs in 4 US cities from December 6, 2021, to July 28, 2022. Noncritically ill adult patients who had not previously received COVID-19 vaccines were enrolled.

INTERVENTIONS

A 3-pronged COVID-19 vaccine messaging platform (an English- or Spanish-language 4-minute video; a 1-page informational flyer; and a brief, scripted message from an ED physician or nurse) was delivered during patient waiting times.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The 2 primary outcomes were (1) COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, assessed by survey responses in the ED, and (2) receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days, ascertained by ED confirmation of vaccination, electronic health record review, and telephone follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 496 participants enrolled (221 during intervention weeks and 275 during control weeks), the median (IQR) age was 39 (30-54) years, 205 (41.3%) were female, 193 (38.9%) were African American, 97 (19.6%) were Latinx, and 218 (44.0%) lacked primary care physicians. More intervention group participants, compared with control participants, stated that they would accept the vaccine in the ED (57 [25.8%] vs 33 [12.0%]; adjusted difference, 11.9 [95% CI, 4.5-19.3] percentage points; number needed to treat [NNT], 8 [95% CI, 5-22]). More intervention group participants than control participants received a COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days of their ED visit (44 [20.0%] vs 24 [8.7%]; adjusted difference, 7.9 [95% CI, 1.7-14.1] percentage points; NNT, 13 [95% CI, 7-60]). The intervention group had greater outcome effect sizes than the control group in participants who lacked a primary care physician (acceptance, 38 of 101 [37.6%] vs 16 of 117 [13.7%] [P for interaction = .004]; uptake, 31 of 101 [30.7%] vs 11 of 117 [9.4%] [P for interaction = .006]), as well as in Latinx persons (acceptance, 23 of 52 [44.2%] vs 5 of 48 [10.4%] [P for interaction = .004]; uptake, 22 of 52 [42.3%] vs 4 of 48 [8.3%] [P for interaction < .001]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this cluster randomized clinical trial showed that with low NNT, implementation of COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs leads to greater vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. Broad implementation in EDs could lead to greater COVID-19 vaccine delivery to underserved populations whose primary health care access occurs in EDs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05142332.

Perspectives of COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant emergency department patients to inform messaging platforms to promote vaccine uptake

OBJECTIVES

Efforts to promote COVID-19 vaccine acceptance must consider the critical role of the emergency department (ED) in providing health care to underserved patients. Focusing on patients who lacked primary care, we sought to elicit the perspectives of unvaccinated ED patients regarding COVID-19 vaccination concerns and potential approaches that might increase their vaccine acceptance.

METHODS

We conducted this qualitative interview study from August to November 2021 at four urban EDs in San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; Durham, North Carolina; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We included ED patients who were ≥18 years old, fluent in English or Spanish, had not received a COVID-19 vaccine, and did not have primary care physicians or clinics. We excluded patients who were unable to complete an interview, in police custody, under suspicion of active COVID-19 illness, or presented with a psychiatric chief complaint. We enrolled until we reached thematic saturation in relevant domains. We analyzed interview transcripts with a content analysis approach focused on identifying concerns about COVID-19 vaccines and ideas regarding the promotion of vaccine acceptance and potential trusted messengers.

RESULTS

Of 65 patients enrolled, 28 (43%) identified as female, their median age was 36 years (interquartile range 29-49), and 12 (18%) interviews were conducted in Spanish. Primary concerns about COVID-19 vaccines included risk of complications, known and unknown side effects, and fear of contracting COVID-19 from vaccines. Trust played a major role for patients in deciding which sources to use for vaccine information and in engendering vaccine acceptance. Health care providers and family or friends were commonly cited as trusted messengers of information.

CONCLUSIONS

We characterized concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, uncovered themes that may promote vaccine acceptance, and identified trusted messengers-primarily health care professionals. These data may inform the development of nuanced COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among underserved ED populations.

Approaches to enabling rapid evaluation of innovations in health and social care: a scoping review of evidence from high-income countries

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic increased the demand for rapid evaluation of innovation in health and social care. Assessment of rapid methodologies is lacking although challenges in ensuring rigour and effective use of resources are known. We mapped reports of rapid evaluations of health and social care innovations, categorised different approaches to rapid evaluation, explored comparative benefits of rapid evaluation, and identified knowledge gaps.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases were searched through 13 September 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included publications reporting primary research or methods for rapid evaluation of interventions or services in health and social care in high-income countries.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers developed and piloted a data extraction form. One reviewer extracted data, a second reviewer checked 10% of the studies; disagreements and uncertainty were resolved through consensus. We used narrative synthesis to map different approaches to conducting rapid evaluation.

RESULTS

We identified 16 759 records and included 162 which met inclusion criteria.We identified four main approaches for rapid evaluation: (1) Using methodology designed specifically for rapid evaluation; (2) Increasing rapidity by doing less or using less time-intensive methodology; (3) Using alternative technologies and/or data to increase speed of existing evaluation method; (4) Adapting part of non-rapid evaluation.The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in publications and some limited changes in identified methods. We found little research comparing rapid and non-rapid evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a lack of clarity about what 'rapid evaluation' means but identified some useful preliminary categories. There is a need for clarity and consistency about what constitutes rapid evaluation; consistent terminology in reporting evaluations as rapid; development of specific methodologies for making evaluation more rapid; and assessment of advantages and disadvantages of rapid methodology in terms of rigour, cost and impact.

A systematic literature review to clarify the concept of vaccine hesitancy

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is considered a top-10 global health threat. The concept of VH has been described and applied inconsistently. This systematic review aims to clarify VH by analysing how it is operationalized. We searched PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases on 14 January 2022. We selected 422 studies containing operationalizations of VH for inclusion. One limitation is that studies of lower quality were not excluded. Our qualitative analysis reveals that VH is conceptualized as involving (1) cognitions or affect, (2) behaviour and (3) decision making. A wide variety of methods have been used to measure VH. Our findings indicate the varied and confusing use of the term VH, leading to an impracticable concept. We propose that VH should be defined as a state of indecisiveness regarding a vaccination decision.

COVID‐19 vaccine controversy: A cross‐sectional analysis of factors associated with COVID‐19 vaccine acceptance amongst emergency department patients in New York City

Objective

Understanding variables associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine confidence and hesitancy may inform strategies to improve vaccine uptake in clinical settings such as the emergency department (ED). We aim to identify factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and to assess patient attitudes surrounding offering COVID-19 vaccines in the ED.

Methods

We conducted a survey of a convenience sample of patients and patient visitors over the age 18 years, who were native English or Spanish speakers. The survey was conducted from March through August 2021 at 3 EDs in New York City. The survey was administered via an electronic format, and participants provided verbal consent.

Results

Our sample size was 377. Individuals with post-graduate degrees viewed vaccines positively (Prevalence Ratio [PR], 1.63; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.07-2.47).  Of the various high-risk medical conditions associated with adverse COVID-19 infection outcomes, diabetes was the only condition associated with more positive views of vaccines (PR, 1.37; CI, 1.17-1.59). Of all participants, 71.21% stated that they believed offering a COVID-19 vaccine in the ED was a good idea. Of unvaccinated participants, 21.80% stated they would get vaccinated if it were offered to them in the ED.

Conclusion

EDs can serve as a safety net for vulnerable populations and can act as an access point for vaccination.

ED-based COVID-19 vaccination campaign finds higher vaccination rates for individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups compared with clinic setting

BACKGROUND

Emergency department visits associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) continue to indicate racial and ethnic inequities. We describe the sociodemographic characteristics of individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccination in the emergency department and compare with an outpatient clinic population and emergency department (ED) patients who were eligible but not vaccinated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic health record data at an urban academic ED from May to July 2021. The primary aim was to characterize the ED-vaccinated population, compared with ED patients who were eligible but unvaccinated and the physically adjacent outpatient vaccination clinic population.

RESULTS

A total of 627 COVID-19 vaccinations were administered in the ED. Overall, 49% of ED patients during that time had already received at least one vaccine dose prior to ED arrival. Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black patients, and patients on non-commercial insurance had higher odds of being vaccinated in the ED as compared with outpatient clinic setting. Among eligible ED patients, men and patients who were uninsured/self-pay were more likely to accept ED vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

This ED COVID-19 vaccination campaign demonstrated a higher likelihood to vaccinate individuals from racial/ethnic minority groups, those with high social vulnerability, and non-commercial insurance, when compared with a co-located outpatient vaccination clinic.

COVID-19 vaccine deliberation among people who inject drugs

Background

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at greater risk for severe morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 due to comorbid, chronic, medical conditions and structural inequities associated with housing instability and incarceration. As such, they are a population that would greatly benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

We surveyed 350 syringe exchange clients between March 2021 and June 2021 to collect information on vaccine uptake among PWID, facilitators and barriers to vaccination, and demographic correlates of vaccine hesitancy.

Results

Findings highlight that among PWID, vaccination access was remarkably low with only 10% of the sample receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine acceptability among people who were vaccinated was 42% highlighting barriers to access. Motivation for vaccination included a desire to keep family members and other community members safe and a desire to feel safe around other people. Barriers to vaccination included concerns about vaccine side effects, lack of concern surrounding the effects of COVID-19, and insufficient information about how the vaccine works, along with general distrust of the vaccine development and deployment process.

Conclusions

There is a need for structural interventions and individual behavioral interventions to improve COVID-19 vaccine access and uptake among PWID. Limitations and implications for next steps and future directions are discussed.

Patients' Perspectives on Emergency Department COVID-19 Vaccination and Vaccination Messaging Through Randomized Vignettes

Objectives:

Emergency departments (EDs) could play an important role in the COVID-19 pandemic response by reaching patients who would otherwise not seek vaccination in the community. Prior to expanding COVID-19 vaccination to the acute care setting, we assessed ED patients’ COVID-19 vaccine status, perspectives, and hypothetical receptivity to ED-based vaccination.

Methods:

From January 11 through March 31, 2021, we conducted a multisite (Albany Medical Center, Boston Medical Center, Buffalo General Hospital, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, and Upstate Medical Center), cross-sectional survey of ED patients, with embedded randomization for participants to receive 1 of 4 vignette vaccination messages (simple opt-in message, recommendation by the hospital, community-oriented message, and acknowledgment of vaccine hesitancy). Main outcomes included COVID-19 vaccination status, prior intention to be vaccinated, and receptivity to randomized hypothetical vignette messages.

Results:

Of 610 participants, 122 (20.0%) were vaccinated, 234 (38.4%) had prior intent to be vaccinated, 111 (18.2%) were unsure as to prior intent, and 143 (23.4%) had no prior intent to be vaccinated. Vaccine hesitancy (participants who were vaccine unsure or did not intend to receive the vaccine) was associated with the following: age <45 years, female, non-Hispanic Black, no primary health care, and no prior influenza vaccination. Overall, 364 of 565 (64.4%; 95% CI, 60.3%-68.4%) were willing to accept a hypothetical vaccination in the ED. Among participants with prior vaccine hesitancy, a simple opt-in message resulted in the highest acceptance rates to hypothetical vaccination (39.7%; 95% CI, 27.6%-52.8%).

Conclusions:

EDs have appropriate patient populations to initiate COVID-19 vaccination programs as a supplement to community efforts. A simple opt-in approach may offer the best messaging to reach vaccine-hesitant ED patients.

PROmotion of COvid-19 VA(X)ccination in the Emergency Department-PROCOVAXED: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

We conducted in-depth interviews to characterize reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients and developed messaging platforms that may address their concerns. In this trial, we seek to determine whether provision of these COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs will be associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients.

Methods

This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating our COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in seven hospital EDs (mix of academic, community, and safety-net EDs) in four US cities. Within each study site, we randomized 30 1-week periods to the intervention and 30 1-week periods to the control. Adult patients who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine are eligible with these exclusions: (1) major trauma, intoxication, altered mental status, or critical illness; (2) incarceration; (3) psychiatric chief complaint; and (4) suspicion of acute COVID-19 illness. Participants receive an orally administered Intake survey. During intervention weeks, participants then receive three COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms (4-min video, one-page informational flyer and a brief, scripted face-to-face message delivered by an ED physician or nurse); patients enrolled during non-intervention weeks do not receive these platforms. Approximately, an hour after intake surveys, participants receive a Vaccine Acceptance survey during which the primary outcome of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the ED is ascertained. The other primary outcome of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 32 days is ascertained by electronic health record review and phone follow-up. To determine whether provision of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with a 7% increase in vaccine acceptance and uptake, we will need to enroll 1290 patients.

Discussion

Highlighting the difficulties of trial implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic in acute care settings, our novel trial will lay the groundwork for delivery of public health interventions to vulnerable populations whose only health care access occurs in EDs.

Conclusions

Toward addressing vaccine hesitancy in vulnerable populations who seek care in EDs, our cluster-RCT will determine whether implementation of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients.

Trial status

We began enrollment in December 2021 and expect to continue through 2022.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT05142332. Registered 02 December 2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06285-x.

Facemasks: Perceptions and use in an ED population during COVID-19

Study objective

Facemask use is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Most surveys assessing perceptions and practices of mask use miss the most vulnerable racial, ethnic, and socio-economic populations. These same populations have suffered disproportionate impacts from the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, access, and practices of mask wearing across 15 urban emergency department (ED) populations.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of ED patients from December 2020 to March 2021 at 15 geographically diverse, safety net EDs across the US. The primary outcome was frequency of mask use outside the home and around others. Other outcome measures included having enough masks and difficulty obtaining them.

Results

Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89%) agreed to participate; nine had missing data pertaining to the primary outcome, leaving 2,292 included in the final analysis. A total of 79% of respondents reported wearing masks “all of the time” and 96% reported wearing masks over half the time. Subjects with PCPs were more likely to report wearing masks over half the time compared to those without PCPs (97% vs 92%). Individuals experiencing homelessness were less likely to wear a mask over half the time compared to those who were housed (81% vs 96%).

Conclusions

Study participants reported high rates of facemask use. Respondents who did not have PCPs and those who were homeless were less likely to report wearing a mask over half the time and more likely to report barriers in obtaining masks. The ED may serve a critical role in education regarding, and provision of, masks for vulnerable populations.

COVID-19 vaccine coverage and factors associated with vaccine uptake among 23 247 adults with a recent history of homelessness in Ontario, Canada: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

People experiencing homelessness face a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission, as well as health complications and death due to COVID-19. Despite being prioritised for receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in many regions, little data are available on vaccine uptake in this vulnerable population. Using population-based health-care administrative data from Ontario, Canada-a region with a universal, publicly funded health system-we aimed to describe COVID-19 vaccine coverage (ie, the estimated percentage of people who have received a vaccine) and determinants of vaccine receipt among individuals with a recent history of homelessness.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) with a recent experience of homelessness, inadequate housing, or shelter use as recorded in routinely collected health-care databases between June 14, 2020, and June 14, 2021 (a period within 6 months of Dec 14, 2020, when COVID-19 vaccine administration was initiated in Ontario). Participants were followed up from Dec 14, 2020, to Sept 30, 2021, for the receipt of one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine using the province's real-time centralised vaccine information system. We described COVID-19 vaccine coverage overall and within predefined subgroups. Using modified Poisson regression, we further identified sociodemographic factors, health-care usage, and clinical factors associated with receipt of at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

FINDINGS

23 247 individuals with a recent history of homelessness were included in this study. Participants were predominantly male (14 752 [63·5%] of 23 247); nearly half were younger than 40 years (11 521 [49·6%]) and lived in large metropolitan regions (12 123 [52·2%]); and the majority (18 226 [78·4%]) visited a general practitioner for an in-person consultation during the observation period. By Sept 30, 2021, 14 271 (61·4%; 95% CI 60·8-62·0) individuals with a recent history of homelessness had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 11 082 (47·7%; 47·0-48·3) had received two doses; in comparison, over the same period, 86·6% of adults in the total Ontario population had received a first dose and 81·6% had received a second dose. In multivariable analysis, factors positively associated with COVID-19 uptake were one or more outpatient visits to a general practitioner (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1·37 [95% CI 1·31-1·42]), older age (50-59 years vs 18-29 years: 1·18 [1·14-1·22], ≥60 years vs 18-29 years: 1·27 [1·22-1·31]), receipt of an influenza vaccine in either of the two previous influenza seasons (1·25 [1·23-1·28]), being identified as homeless via a visit to a community health centre versus exclusively a hospital-based encounter (1·13 [1·10-1·15]), receipt of one or more SARS-CoV-2 tests between March 1, 2020, and Sept 30, 2021 (1·23 [1·20-1·26]), and the presence of chronic health conditions (one condition: 1·05 [1·03-1·08]; two or more conditions: 1·11 [1·08-1·14]). By contrast, living in a smaller metropolitan region (aRR 0·92 [95% CI 0·90-0·94]) or rural location (0·93 [0·90-0·97]) versus large metropolitan regions were associated with lower uptake.

INTERPRETATION

In Ontario, COVID-19 vaccine coverage among adults with a recent history of homelessness has lagged and, as of Sept 30, 2021, was 25 percentage points lower than that of the general adult population in Ontario for a first dose and 34 percentage points lower for a second dose. With high usage of outpatient health services among individuals with a recent history of homelessness, better utilisation of outpatient primary care structures might offer an opportunity to increase vaccine coverage in this population. Our findings underscore the importance of leveraging existing health and service organisations that are accessed and trusted by people who experience homelessness for targeted vaccine delivery.

FUNDING

The Public Health Agency of Canada.

TRANSLATION

For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Using rapid evaluation methods to assess service delivery changes: Lessons learned for evaluation practice during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic required large-scale service delivery changes for government, and provided the opportunity for evaluators to step up and support decision makers to understand the impact of these changes. Rapid evaluation methods (REM) provide a pragmatic approach for generating timely information for evidence-based policy and decision-making. Grounded in developmental and utilisation-focused evaluation theory, REM incorporates a team-based, mixed methods design, executed over a 6-8-week period. Customised rubrics were used to rigorously assess effectiveness and scalability of practice changes to inform COVID-19 response planning. REM is an alternative approach to full-scale evaluation models frequently implemented to assess policies and programs. Adapted use of REM suggests that meaningful insights can be gained through use of smaller scale evaluations. This article shares lessons learned from a novel rapid evaluation method applied in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapid evaluation approach was implemented to provide real-time insights and evaluative conclusions for 15 program and practice adaptations across Victorian health and human service settings. The article shares insights about the practical applicability of balancing rigour and timeliness when implementing a rapid evaluation, and strengths and limitations of working within a fast-paced evaluation framework. Findings can inform evaluative practice in resource and time-limited settings.

Factors Associated with Parental Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Multicenter Pediatric Emergency Department Cross-sectional Analysis

Study objective

During the delta surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, we sought to identify characteristics and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in parents of pediatric emergency department (ED) patients.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey-based study of the parents of children aged 3 to 16 years presenting to 1 of 9 pediatric EDs from June to August 2021 to assess the parental acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Using multiple variable regression, we ascertained which factors were associated with parental and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination acceptance.

Results

Of 1,491 parents approached, 1,298 (87%) participated, of whom 50% of the parents and 27% of their children aged 12 years or older and older were vaccinated. Characteristics associated with parental COVID-19 vaccination were trust in scientists (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.65 to 7.15), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 2.66, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.58), college degree (aOR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85), increasing parental age (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.22), a friend or family member hospitalized because of COVID-19 (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.72), and higher income (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.00). Characteristics associated with pediatric COVID-19 vaccination (children aged ≥12 years) or intended COVID-19 pediatric vaccination, once approved for use, (children aged <12 years) were parental trust in scientists (aOR 5.37, 95% CI 3.65 to 7.88), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.77), trust in the media (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.37), parental college degree (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.20), and increasing parental age (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.57).

Conclusion

Overall COVID-19 vaccination acceptance was low. Trust in scientists had the strongest association with parental COVID-19 vaccine acceptance for both themselves and their children.

Multilevel determinants of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the United States: A rapid systematic review

Vaccine hesitancy is a challenge for the success and optimal implementation of COVID-19 immunization programs in the US. The objective of this study was to summarize multilevel determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention in the US to inform future intervention opportunities. To this end, we conducted a rapid systematic review by searching published articles via PubMed published by October 5, 2021, following the PRISMA guidelines. One hundred and six articles were included. According to nationally representative studies, the overall COVID-19 acceptance rate ranges from 53.6% to 84.4%. Individual (demographics, health history, behaviors and health beliefs), interpersonal (having a close friend/family member impacted by COVID-19), healthcare and societal level factors (healthcare provider recommendations, source/credential of COVID-19 related information, and COVID-19 related conspiracy theories) all contributed to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the US. This study demonstrates that the acceptance to COVID-19 vaccines is influenced by various factors, particularly the role of healthcare providers in enhancing public intent to vaccination. Potential interventions to mitigate people's concerns over the vaccines and address vaccine-related conspiracy/misinformation from social media are also critical to encourage vaccine uptake in the US.