Building Family Interventions for Scalability and Impact

Family nursing researchers are charged with addressing the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of family research when developing family-focused interventions. Step-by-step guidance is needed that integrates current science of intervention development with family science and helps researchers progress from foundational work to experimental work with policy integration. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide pragmatic, evidence-based guidance for advancing family intervention research from foundational work through efficacy testing. Guidance regarding the development of family interventions is presented using the first three of Sidani’s five-stage method: (a) foundational work to understand the problem targeted for change; (b) intervention development and assessment of acceptability and feasibility; and (c) efficacy testing. Each stage of family intervention development is described in terms of process, design considerations, and policy and practice implications. Examples are included to emphasize the family lens. This manuscript provides guidance to family scientists for intervention development and implementation to advance family nursing science and inform policy

Fathers’ Experiences of Caring for a Child with a Chronic Illness: A Systematic Review

The prevalence of children living with chronic health conditions is increasing worldwide and can disrupt family roles, relationships, function, and parental involvement in family caregiving. The purpose of this systematic review was to explore fathers’ experiences and involvement in caring for a child with a chronic condition. Systematic searches using seven databases were conducted. Study criteria included (1) peer-reviewed original research in English, Spanish, French, or Portuguese, (2) children less than 19 years of age with a chronic condition, (3) fathers (biological or guardian) as direct informants, and (4) outcomes addressing fathers’ experience, perceptions, and/or involvement in the child’s care. Data were synthesized from ten articles reflecting eight separate studies that utilized quantitative designs. Three areas of focus were identified: Family Functioning, Father’s Psychological Health, and Need for Support. Data suggested increased involvement from the father in caring for their child with a chronic condition was associated with improved family functioning, increased anxiety and distress, decreased self-esteem, and increased need for support. This review revealed a paucity of data regarding fathers’ experiences and involvement when caring for a child with a chronic condition, with that available primarily from developed countries. Rigorous empirical studies are needed to deepen understanding of how fathers are involved in the care of their child with a chronic condition

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health