Suchergebnisse

Objective: To explore factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine decision-making among Black adults at high-risk for COVID-19 infection. Despite effective treatment and vaccination availability, Black Americans continue to be disproportionately impacted by COVID-19.Design, Setting, and Participants: Using community-engaged qualitative methods, we conducted virtual, semi-structured focus groups with Black residents in Los Angeles County before widespread vaccine rollout. Recruitment occurred through local com­munity partners.Methods: As part of a larger study exploring COVID-19 vaccine decision-making factors among multiethnic groups, two-hour virtual focus groups were conducted between December 15, 2020 and January 27, 2021. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.Main Outcome Measures: Themes and subthemes on factors for vaccine confi­dence and accessibility.Results: Three focus groups were con­ducted with 17 Black participants, who were primarily female (n=15), residents of high-poverty zip codes (n=11) and employed full-time (n=6). Black-specific considerations for vaccine confidence and accessibility include: 1) reduced confidence in COVID-19 vaccines due to historical gov­ernment inaction and racism (existing health inequities and disparities are rooted in rac­ism; historical unethical research practices); 2) misunderstanding of Black communities' vaccine concerns ("vaccine hesitancy" as an inaccurate label to describe vaccine skepti­cism; ignorance to root causes of vaccine skepticism); and 3) recognizing and building on resources (community agency to address COVID-19 vaccine needs adequately).Conclusions: Vaccination campaigns should improve understanding of underlying vac­cination concerns to improve vaccine out­reach effectiveness and should partner with, provide resources to, and invest in local, trusted Black community entities to improve COVID-19 vaccination disparities.Ethn Dis. 2022;32(4):341-350; doi:10.18865/ed.32.4.341

ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has had disproportionate effects on racial and ethnic minority communities, where preexisting clinical and social conditions amplify health and social disparities. Many of these communities report lower vaccine confidence and lower receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding factors that influence the multifaceted decision-making process for vaccine uptake is critical for narrowing COVID-19-related disparities.ObjectiveTo examine factors that members of multiethnic communities at high risk for COVID-19 infection and morbidity report as contributing to vaccine decision-making.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used community-engaged methods to conduct virtual focus groups from November 16, 2020, to January 28, 2021, with Los Angeles County residents. Potential participants were recruited through email, video, and telephone outreach to community partner networks. Focus groups were stratified by self-identified race and ethnicity as well as age. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThemes were categorized by contextual, individual, and vaccine-specific influences using the World Health Organization's Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix categories.ResultsA total of 13 focus groups were conducted with 70 participants (50 [71.4%] female) who self-identified as American Indian (n = 17 [24.3%]), Black/African American (n = 17 [24.3%]), Filipino/Filipina (n = 11 [15.7%]), Latino/Latina (n = 15 [21.4%]), or Pacific Islander (n = 10 [14.3%]). A total of 39 participants (55.7%) were residents from high-poverty zip codes, and 34 (48.6%) were essential workers. The resulting themes included policy implications for equitable vaccine distribution: contextual influences (unclear and unreliable information, concern for inequitable access or differential treatment, references to mistrust from unethical research studies, accessibility and accommodation barriers, eligibility uncertainty, and fears of politicization or pharmaceutical industry influence); social and group influences (inadequate exposure to trusted messengers or information, altruistic motivations, medical mistrust, and desire for autonomy); and vaccination-specific influences (need for vaccine evidence by subpopulation, misconceptions on vaccine development, allocation ambiguity, vaccination safety preferences, the importance of perceiving vaccine equity, burden of vaccine scheduling, cost uncertainty, and desire for practitioner recommendation).Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study, participants reported a number of factors that affected their vaccine decision-making, including concern for inequitable vaccine access. Participants endorsed policy recommendations and strategies to promote vaccine confidence. These results suggest that support of informed deliberation and attainment of vaccine equity will require multifaceted, multilevel policy approaches that improve COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, enhance trust, and address the complex interplay of sociocultural and structural barriers to vaccination.

Objective
To synthesize community and healthcare informants' perspectives on contextual considerations and tailoring recommendations for high-quality, sustainable implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for managing hypertension (HTN) in a multiethnic safety-net population.


Design
Structured focus-group discussions and semistructured qualitative interviews.


Background
High-quality, sustainable implementation of HTN-related EBPs can promote equitable care. Implementation challenges extend beyond individual patients to span multiple levels of context. Few studies have systematically engaged community and healthcare perspectives to inform the design of HTN intervention trials.


Setting
A large safety-net healthcare system.


Participants/Methods
We conducted four structured discussions with each of five race- or ethnicity-specific community action boards (CABs) to understand community members' HTN-related norms, assets, needs, and experiences across local healthcare systems. We interviewed 41 personnel with diverse roles in our partnered healthcare system to understand the system's HTN-related strengths and needs. We solicited EBP tailoring recommendations from both groups. We summarized the findings using rapid content analysis.


Results
Participants identified contextual considerations spanning seven themes: social determinants, healthcare engagement, clinical interaction, system operations, standardization, patient education, and partnerships and funding. They offered tailoring recommendations spanning nine themes: addressing complex contexts, addressing social needs, system operations, healthcare system training and resources, linguistic and cultural tailoring, behavioral engagement, relational engagement, illness-course engagement, and community partnerships.


Conclusions
Engaging community and healthcare informants can ground implementation in the policy, community, healthcare system, clinical, and interpersonal contexts surrounding diverse patients at risk for disparities. Such grounding can reframe inequitable implementation as a multilevel social problem facing communities and healthcare systems, rather than individuals.

Background
The translation of evidence-based interventions into practice settings remains challenging. Implementation science aims to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap by understanding multilevel contexts and tailoring evidence-based interventions accordingly. Engaging community partners who possess timely, local knowledge is crucial for this process to be successful. The Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Risk (DECIPHeR) Alliance aims to address cardiopulmonary health disparities by engaging diverse community partners to improve the implementation of evidence-based interventions. The goal of the Community Engagement Subcommittee is to strengthen community engagement practice across DECIPHeR. This paper presents the subcommittee's "Why We Engage Communities" statement that outlines why community engagement is critical for implementation science. The paper also provides case examples of DECIPHeR community engagement activities.


Methods
To develop the "Why We Engage Communities" statement, we conducted a literature review, surveyed subcommittee members to assess the importance of community engagement in their work, and integrated community partner feedback. We synthesize the findings into three key themes and present examples of community engagement activities and their impact across DECIPHeR projects.


Results
The statement presents three themes that illustrate why community engagement increases the impact of implementation and health equity research. Community engagement (1) engages local knowledge and expertise, (2) promotes authentic relationships, and (3) builds community and researcher capacity. The statement provides a guiding framework for strengthening DECIPHeR research and enhancing community partnerships.


Conclusion
Community engagement can improve the implementation of evidence-based interventions across diverse settings, improving intervention effectiveness in underserved communities and furthering health equity.