Tough Talks COVID-19 Digital Health Intervention for Vaccine Hesitancy Among Black Young Adults: Protocol for a Hybrid Type 1 Effectiveness Implementation Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Interventions for increasing the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among Black young adults are central to ending the pandemic. Black young adults experience harms from structural forces, such as racism and stigma, that reduce receptivity to traditional public health messaging due to skepticism and distrust. As such, Black young adults continue to represent a priority population on which to focus efforts for promoting COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Objective In aims 1 and 2, the Tough Talks digital health intervention for HIV disclosure will be adapted to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and tailored to the experiences of Black young adults in the southern United States (Tough Talks for COVID-19). In aim 3, the newly adapted Tough Talks for COVID-19 digital health intervention will be tested across the following three southern states: Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina. Methods Our innovative digital health intervention study will include qualitative and quantitative assessments. A unique combination of methodological techniques, including web-based surveys, choose-your-own-adventures, digital storytelling, user acceptability testing, and community-based participatory approaches, will culminate in a 2-arm hybrid type 1 effectiveness implementation randomized controlled trial, wherein participants will be randomized to the Tough Talks for COVID-19 intervention arm or a standard-of-care control condition (N=360). Logistic regression will be used to determine the effect of the treatment arm on the probability of vaccination uptake (primary COVID-19 vaccine series or recommended boosters). Concurrently, the inner and outer contexts of implementation will be ascertained and catalogued to inform future scale-up. Florida State University’s institutional review board approved the study (STUDY00003617). Results Our study was funded at the end of April 2021. Aim 1 data collection concluded in early 2022. The entire study is expected to conclude in January 2025. Conclusions If effective, our digital health intervention will be poised for broad, rapid dissemination to reduce COVID-19 mortality among unvaccinated Black young adults in the southern United States. Our findings will have the potential to inform efforts that seek to address medical mistrust through participatory approaches. The lessons learned from the conduct of our study could be instrumental in improving health care engagement among Black young adults for several critical areas that disproportionately harm this community, such as tobacco control and diabetes prevention. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05490329; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05490329 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/4124

Using narratives to inform the development of a digital health intervention related to COVID-19 vaccination in Black young adults in Georgia, North Carolina and Alabama

Interactive stories are a relatively newer form of storytelling with great potential to correct misinformation while increasing self-efficacy, which is crucial to vaccine acceptance. To address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and medical mistrust in young Black adults (BYA), we sought to adapt a pre-existing application (“app”; Tough Talks) designed to address HIV disclosure decision-making through choose-your-own adventure (CYOA) narratives and other activities. The adapted app (Tough Talks – COVID) uses a similar approach to situate COVID-19 vaccination decision-making within social contexts and to encourage greater deliberation about decisions. To inform content for the CYOA narratives, we conducted an online survey that was used to elicit the behavioral, cognitive, and environmental determinants influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among 150 BYA (ages 18–29) in Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina. The survey included scenario questions that were developed with input from a youth advisory board to understand responses to peer and family influences. In two scenarios that involved discussions with family and friends about vaccination status, most respondents chose to be honest about their vaccination status. However, vaccinated individuals perceived more social pressure and stigma about not being vaccinated than unvaccinated respondents who were not as motivated by social pressure. Personal choice/agency in the face of perceived vaccine risks was a more common theme for unvaccinated respondents. Results suggest that relying on changing social norms alone may not impact barriers to vaccination in unvaccinated young adults without also addressing other barriers to vaccination such as concerns about autonomy and vaccine safety. Based on these findings, CYOA narratives in the app were adapted to include discussions with family and friends but also to touch on themes of personal choice as well as other topics that influence behaviors besides norms such as safety, side effects, and risk of COVID-19 in an evolving pandemic

Digital directly observed therapy to monitor adherence to medications: a scoping review

Background: Technology-based directly observed therapy (DOT) is more cost-effective and efficient compared with in-person monitoring visits for medication adherence. While some evidence shows these technologies are feasible and acceptable, there is limited evidence collating information across medical conditions or in the context of HIV prevention, care, and treatment.Objectives: We conducted a scoping review to understand the current evidence on the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of digital DOT to improve medication adherence and, specifically, to determine if digital DOT had been used to improve adherence for HIV prevention, care, and treatmentMethods: We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science in January 2021 for any published studies with terms related to digital technologies and DOT. We included peer-reviewed studies in any population, from any country, for any outcome, and excluded conference abstracts. We included three types of digital DOT interventions: synchronous DOT, asynchronous DOT, and automated DOT. We provide an assessment of the current evidence, gaps in literature, and opportunities for intervention development regarding the use digital DOT to improve antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, specifically in the field of HIV.Results: We identified 28 studies that examined digital DOT. All studies found digital DOT to be acceptable and feasible. Patients using digital DOT had higher rates of treatment completion, observed doses, and adherence compared with in-person DOT, although data were limited on adherence. Only one study examined HIV prevention, and none examined ART adherence for HIV treatment.Conclusions: Digital DOT is acceptable and feasible but has not been used to remotely monitor and support ART adherence for people living with HIV

Digital directly observed therapy to monitor adherence to medications: a scoping review

Background: Technology-based directly observed therapy (DOT) is more cost-effective and efficient compared with in-person monitoring visits for medication adherence. While some evidence shows these technologies are feasible and acceptable, there is limited evidence collating information across medical conditions or in the context of HIV prevention, care, and treatment. Objectives: We conducted a scoping review to understand the current evidence on the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of digital DOT to improve medication adherence and, specifically, to determine if digital DOT had been used to improve adherence for HIV prevention, care, and treatment Methods: We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science in January 2021 for any published studies with terms related to digital technologies and DOT. We included peer-reviewed studies in any population, from any country, for any outcome, and excluded conference abstracts. We included three types of digital DOT interventions: synchronous DOT, asynchronous DOT, and automated DOT. We provide an assessment of the current evidence, gaps in literature, and opportunities for intervention development regarding the use digital DOT to improve antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, specifically in the field of HIV. Results: We identified 28 studies that examined digital DOT. All studies found digital DOT to be acceptable and feasible. Patients using digital DOT had higher rates of treatment completion, observed doses, and adherence compared with in-person DOT, although data were limited on adherence. Only one study examined HIV prevention, and none examined ART adherence for HIV treatment. Conclusions: Digital DOT is acceptable and feasible but has not been used to remotely monitor and support ART adherence for people living with HIV

What Adolescents Say in Text Messages to Motivate Peer Networks to Access Health Care and Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing: Qualitative Thematic Analysis

BackgroundWhile rates of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are extremely high among adolescents and young adults in the United States, rates of HIV and STI testing remain low. Given the ubiquity of mobile phones and the saliency of peers for youths, text messaging strategies may successfully promote HIV or STI testing among youths. ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand the types of messages youths believe were motivating and persuasive when asked to text friends to encourage them to seek HIV or STI testing services at a neighborhood clinic. MethodsWe implemented an adolescent peer-based text messaging intervention to encourage clinic attendance and increase STI and HIV testing among youths (n=100) at an adolescent clinic in San Francisco, California. Participants were asked to send a text message to 5 friends they believed were sexually active to encourage their friends to visit the clinic and receive STI or HIV screening. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the content of the text messages sent and received during the clinic visit. Member checking and consensus coding were used to ensure interrater reliability and significance of themes. ResultsWe identified four themes in the messages sent by participants: (1) calls to action to encourage peers to get tested, (2) personalized messages with sender-specific information, (3) clinic information such as location and hours, and (4) self-disclosure of personal clinic experience. We found that nearly all text messages included some combination of 2 or more of these broad themes. We also found that youths were inclined to send messages they created themselves, as opposed to sending the same message to each peer, which they tailored to each individual to whom they were sent. Many (40/100, 40%) received an immediate response to their message, and most participants reported receiving at least 1 positive response, while a few reported that they had received at least 1 negative response. There were some differences in responses depending on the type of message sent. ConclusionsGiven the high rates of STI and HIV and low rates of testing among adolescents, peer-driven text messaging interventions to encourage accessing care may be successful at reaching this population. This study suggests that youths are willing to text message their friends, and there are clear types of messages they develop and use. Future research should use these methods with a large, more diverse sample of youths and young adults for long-term evaluation of care seeking and care retention outcomes to make progress in reducing HIV and STI among adolescents and young adults

Prioritizing qualitative research in surgery: A synthesis and analysis of publication trends

Background: Over the past 2 decades, researchers have recognized the value of qualitative research. Little has been done to characterize its application to surgery. We describe characteristics and overall prevalence of qualitative surgical research.Methods: We searched PubMed and CINAHL using surgery and 7 qualitative methodology terms. Four researchers extracted information; a fifth researcher reviewed 10% of abstracts for inter-rater reliability.Results: A total of 3,112 articles were reviewed. Removing duplicates, 28% were relevant (N = 878; κ = 0.70). Common qualitative methodologies included phenomenology (34.3%) and grounded theory (30.2%). Interviews were the most common data collection method (81.9%) of patients (64%) within surgical oncology (15.4%). Postdischarge was the most commonly studied topic (30.8%). Overall, 41% of studies were published in nursing journals, while 8% were published in surgical journals. More than half of studies were published since 2011.Conclusion: Results suggest qualitative surgical research is gaining popularity. Most is published in nonsurgical journals, however, utilizing only 2 methodologies (phenomenology, grounded theory). The surgical journals that have published qualitative research had study topics restricted to a handful of surgical specialties. Additional surgical qualitative research should take advantage of a greater variety of approaches to provide insight into rare phenomena and social context

Risks, benefits, and importance of collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data in healthcare settings: A multi-method analysis of patient and provider perspectives

Purpose: Research suggests that LGBT populations experience barriers to healthcare. Organizations such as the Institute of Medicine recommend routine documentation of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) in healthcare, to reduce LGBT disparities. We explore patient views regarding the importance of SO/GI collection, and patient and provider views on risks and benefits of routine SO/GI collection in various settings.Methods: We surveyed LGBT/non-LGBT patients and providers on their views on SO/GI collection. Weighted data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; content analysis was conducted with open-ended responses.Results: One-half of the 1516 patients and 60% of 429 providers were female; 64% of patients and 71% of providers were White. Eighty percent of providers felt that collecting SO data would offend patients, whereas only 11% of patients reported that they would be offended. Patients rated it as more important for primary care providers to know the SO of all patients compared with emergency department (ED) providers knowing the SO of all patients (41.3% vs. 31.6%; P \u3c 0.001). Patients commonly perceived individualized care as an SO/GI disclosure benefit, whereas providers perceived patient-provider interaction improvement as the main benefit. Patient comments cited bias/discrimination risk most frequently (49.7%; N = 781), whereas provider comments cited patient discomfort/offense most frequently (54.5%; N = 433).Conclusion: Patients see the importance of SO/GI more in primary care than ED settings. However, many LGBT patients seek ED care due to factors including uninsurance; therefore, the ED may represent an initial point of contact for SO/GI collection. Therefore, patient-centered approaches to collecting SO/GI are needed. Patients and providers differed in perceived risks and benefits to routine SO/GI collection. Provider training in LGBT health may address patients\u27 bias/discrimination concerns, and ultimately reduce LGBT health disparities

Risks, Benefits, and Importance of Collecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Healthcare Settings: A Multi-Method Analysis of Patient and Provider Perspectives

Purpose: Research suggests that LGBT populations experience barriers to healthcare. Organizations such as the Institute of Medicine recommend routine documentation of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) in healthcare, to reduce LGBT disparities. We explore patient views regarding the importance of SO/GI collection, and patient and provider views on risks and benefits of routine SO/GI collection in various settings.Methods: We surveyed LGBT/non-LGBT patients and providers on their views on SO/GI collection. Weighted data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; content analysis was conducted with open-ended responses.Results: One-half of the 1516 patients and 60% of 429 providers were female; 64% of patients and 71% of providers were White. Eighty percent of providers felt that collecting SO data would offend patients, whereas only 11% of patients reported that they would be offended. Patients rated it as more important for primary care providers to know the SO of all patients compared with emergency department (ED) providers knowing the SO of all patients (41.3% vs. 31.6%; P \u3c 0.001). Patients commonly perceived individualized care as an SO/GI disclosure benefit, whereas providers perceived patient-provider interaction improvement as the main benefit. Patient comments cited bias/discrimination risk most frequently (49.7%; N = 781), whereas provider comments cited patient discomfort/offense most frequently (54.5%; N = 433).Conclusion: Patients see the importance of SO/GI more in primary care than ED settings. However, many LGBT patients seek ED care due to factors including uninsurance; therefore, the ED may represent an initial point of contact for SO/GI collection. Therefore, patient-centered approaches to collecting SO/GI are needed. Patients and providers differed in perceived risks and benefits to routine SO/GI collection. Provider training in LGBT health may address patients\u27 bias/discrimination concerns, and ultimately reduce LGBT health disparities

Is it okay to ask: Transgender patient perspectives on sexual orientation and gender identity collection in healthcare

Objective: The National Academy of Medicine and Joint Commission recommend routine documentation of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) in healthcare to address lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) health disparities. We explored transgender patient-reported views on the importance on SO/GI collection, their willingness to disclose, and their perceived facilitators of SO/GI collection in primary care and emergency department (ED) settings.Methods: We recruited a national sample of self-identified transgender patients. Participants completed demographic questions, survey questions, and free-response comments regarding their views on SO/GI collection. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; inductive content analysis was conducted with open-ended responses.Results: Patients mostly self-identified as male gender (54.5%), white (58.4%), and SO other than heterosexual or LGB (33.7%; N = 101). Patients felt that it was more important for primary care providers to know their GI than SO (89.1% vs. 57%; p \u3c 0.001); there was no difference among reported importance for ED providers to know the patients\u27 SO versus GI. Females were more likely than males to report medical relevance to chief complaint as a facilitator to SO disclosure (89.1% vs. 80%; p = 0.02) and less likely to identify routine collection from all patients as a facilitator to GI disclosure (67.4% vs. 78.2%; p = 0.09). Qualitatively, many patients reported that medical relevance to chief complaint and an LGBT-friendly environment would increase willingness to disclose their SO/GI. Patients also reported need for educating providers in LGBT health prior to implementing routine SO/GI collection.Conclusions: Patients see the importance of providing GI more than SO to providers; nonetheless they are willing to disclose SO/GI in general.. Findings also suggest that gender differences may exist in facilitators of SO/GI disclosure. Given the underrepresentation of transgender patients in healthcare, it is crucial for providers to address their concerns with SO/GI disclosure, which include LGBT education for medical staff and provision of a safe environment