An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance

Higher interest to continue COVID-19 practice recommendations in non-pandemic times among German GPs with better crisis leadership skills (egePan study)

BACKGROUND

The German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM) issued a COVID-19 guideline with eleven recommendations to support primary care services during the pandemic. Their use in general practices beyond the pandemic can contribute to pandemic preparedness. This study analysed general practitioners' (GPs) interest in applying recommended organisational changes in non-pandemic times.

METHODS

Data from the German egePan GP survey (n = 516 GPs) - a multi-level clustered randomised web-based survey - were analysed. GPs' interest in the future application of the eleven guideline recommendations was calculated. In addition, each recommendation was evaluated by the GPs using a Net-Promoter-Score (NPS range - 100 to 100). A linear regression model identified GP and practice characteristics associated with a higher interest in applying recommendations in non-pandemic times.

RESULTS

98.5% of the GPs indicated the intention to implement at least one guideline recommendation prospectively: disinfectant dispensers at the entrance (86%), optimised consultation scheduling to reduce waiting times (83%), and glass screens in the reception area (72%), which also received the highest NPS scores. In contrast, lower interest was observed for items such as insurance card readers handled by patients (48%), only selected staff treating infectious patients (44%), and video consultations for patients with infections (26%). A higher interest to implement recommendations in non-pandemic times was associated with a higher crisis leadership score (p < 0.001), using the Corona-Warn-App (p = 0.007), and being a female GP (p = 0.045). In addition, GPs from Western, Northern, and Southern, and those with a higher patient volume per three months, were more interested in future implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, GPs demonstrated the readiness to follow the DEGAM COVID-19 guideline outside pandemic periods, establishing them as key contributors to pandemic preparedness in Germany.

Values and preferences in COVID-19 public health guidelines: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Internationally accepted standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in values and preferences. Considering values and preferences respects the rights of citizens to participate in health decision-making and ensures that guidelines align with the needs and priorities of the communities they are intended to serve. Early anecdotal reports suggest that COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. To capture and characterize whether and how COVID-19 public health guidelines considered values and preferences.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of COVID-19 public health guidelines. We searched the eCOVID-19 RecMap platform-a comprehensive international catalog of COVID-19 guidelines-up to July 2023 and the Guidelines International Network Library-an international library of guidelines published or endorsed by Guidelines International Network member organizations-up to May 2024. We included guidelines that made recommendations addressing vaccination, masking, isolation, lockdowns, travel restrictions, contact tracing, infection surveillance, and school closures. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to review guidelines for consideration of values and preferences.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 130 eligible guidelines, of which 41 (31.5%) were published by national organizations, 70 (53.8%) by international organizations, and 19 (14.6%) by professional societies and associations. Twenty-eight (21.5%) guidelines considered values and preferences. Among guidelines that considered values and preferences, most did so to assess the acceptability of recommendations (23; 82.1%) and by referencing published research (25; 89.3%). Guidelines only occasionally engaged laypersons as part of the guideline development group (8; 28.6%). None of the guidelines performed systematic reviews of the literature addressing values and preferences.

CONCLUSION

Most COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. When they were considered, it was often suboptimal. Disregard for values and preferences might have partly contributed to divisive and unpopular COVID-19 policies. Given the possibility of future health emergencies, we recommend guideline developers identify efficient and effective methods for considering values and preferences in crisis situations.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations

OBJECTIVES

To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale.

RESULTS

Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings.

CONCLUSION

Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations.

METHODS

We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria.

RESULTS

We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94).

CONCLUSION

Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

Change and Continuity in Preventive Practices Across the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Rural and Urban Latinx Immigrant Worker Families

BACKGROUND

(1)The COVID-19 pandemic has put essential workers at high risk for contracting the disease. This study documents situational compliance with public health recommendations such as masking and social distancing among rural and urban Latinx families, with the goal of understanding change over time in COVID-19 risk reduction behaviors.

METHODS

(2)Respondents for 67 rural families and 44 urban families responded to repeated telephone surveys at three time points in the first year of the pandemic, providing data on use of masks and social distancing by themselves and family members while interacting with others at home, work, and in the community. Cumulative logistic regression models were employed to compare changes in risk behaviors between rural and urban groups over time.

RESULTS

(3)While group descriptive results indicated behaviors that posed low risk at each time point, regression models revealed greater change between time points for rural than urban residents. Rural residents also had gendered patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

(4)Patterns of change appear to reflect structural issues such as seasonal labor demand and gender roles more than pandemic fatigue or changing public health recommendations. The findings suggest that structural factors play a role in individuals complying with public health prevention measures for COVID-19.