Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose To examine the vaccine-related beliefs and behaviors associated with likely hesitancy toward vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among nonelderly adults. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted in June 2020. Responses were sought from Tennessee adults 18 to 64 years of age who were not healthcare providers. The survey instrument focused on vaccine-related beliefs, prior and planned influenza and pneumococcal vaccine use, and attitudes toward receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. Inferential statistics assessed survey responses, and logistic regression determined predictors of the likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination. Results A total of 1,000 completed responses were analyzed (a 62.9% response rate), and respondents were mostly White (80.1%), insured (79.6%), and/or actively working (64.2%); the sample was well balanced by gender, age, income, and political leaning. Approximately one-third (34.4%) of respondents indicated some historical vaccine hesitancy, and only 21.4% indicated always getting a seasonal influenza vaccination. More than half (54.1%) indicated at least some hesitancy toward vaccination against COVID-19, with 32.1% citing lack of evidence of vaccine effectiveness as the leading reason. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was more likely among those with more moderate (odds ratio [OR], 2.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.749-3.607) or conservative (OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.048-4.421) political leanings, Black Americans (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.182-2.742), and residents of nonmetropolitan areas (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.386-2.865). Conclusion Subgroups of the population may prove more challenging to vaccinate against COVID-19, requiring targeted approaches to addressing hesitancy to ensure more-vulnerable populations are adequately covered.

BackgroundHerpes zoster (HZ), also known as shingles, is a painful and commonly occurring condition in the United States. In spite of a universally recommended vaccine for use in immunocompetent adults aged 60 years and older, HZ continues to impact the American public, and a better understanding of its current incidence is needed. The objective of the current study is to estimate the overall and age- and gender-specific incidence rates (IRs) of HZ among an immunocompetent US population in 2011 following availability of a vaccine.MethodsClaims data from the Truven Health MarketScan® Research databases between 01/01/2011 and 12/31/2011 were extracted. Immunocompetent adult patients, enrolled as of January 1, 2011 were analyzed. The denominator was defined as eligible subjects who were immunocompetent, had no evidence of zoster vaccination, and no diagnosis of HZ (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code 053.xx) in the 90 days prior to January 1, 2011. Subjects contributed person-days to the denominator until the occurrence of one of the following events: end of continuous enrollment in the database, a claim for zoster vaccination, diagnosis of HZ or end of the observation period (December 31, 2011). The numerator was defined as enrollees within the denominator file exhibiting evidence of HZ. Annual IRs were calculated for the entire population in the database as well as by gender and age group; standardized IRs were also produced using the 2010 US Census data.ResultsThe overall annual IR of HZ across all ages was 4.47 per 1000 person-years (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 4.44–4.50) which monotonically increased with age from 0.86 (95 % CI: 0.84–0.88) for those aged ≤19 to 12.78 (95 % CI: 12.49–13.07) for patients ≥80 years. The IR was 8.46 (95 % CI: 8.39–8.52) among adults ≥50 years and 10.46 (95 % CI: 10.35–10.56) among those aged ≥60 years. Women compared to men had higher HZ incidence (5.25, 95 % CI: 5.21–5.29 vs. 3.66, 95 % CI: 3.62–3.69) and this was seen across all age groups. When adjusted for age and gender using 2010 US Census data, the annual IR was 4.63 per 1000 person-years (95 % CI: 4.61–4.66).ConclusionsDespite the availability of a vaccine, HZ remains common among immunocompetent adults in the US with incidence rates of HZ observed to increase with age and be higher in women than men.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1262-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Complications of adult outpatient tonsillectomies are common and may be associated with significant morbidity, health care utilization, and expenditures.

Background Health systems and providers across America are increasingly employing telehealth technologies to better serve medically underserved low-income, minority, and rural populations at the highest risk for health disparities. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) has invested US $386 million in comparative effectiveness research in telehealth, yet little is known about the key early lessons garnered from this research regarding the best practices in using telehealth to address disparities. Objective This paper describes preliminary lessons from the body of research using study findings and case studies drawn from PCORI seminal patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) initiatives. The primary purpose was to identify common barriers and facilitators to implementing telehealth technologies in populations at risk for disparities. Methods A systematic scoping review of telehealth studies addressing disparities was performed. It was guided by the Arksey and O’Malley Scoping Review Framework and focused on PCORI’s active portfolio of telehealth studies and key PCOR identified by study investigators. We drew on this broad literature using illustrative examples from early PCOR experience and published literature to assess barriers and facilitators to implementing telehealth in populations at risk for disparities, using the active implementation framework to extract data. Major themes regarding how telehealth interventions can overcome barriers to telehealth adoption and implementation were identified through this review using an iterative Delphi process to achieve consensus among the PCORI investigators participating in the study. Results PCORI has funded 89 comparative effectiveness studies in telehealth, of which 41 assessed the use of telehealth to improve outcomes for populations at risk for health disparities. These 41 studies employed various overlapping modalities including mobile devices (29/41, 71%), web-based interventions (30/41, 73%), real-time videoconferencing (15/41, 37%), remote patient monitoring (8/41, 20%), and store-and-forward (ie, asynchronous electronic transmission) interventions (4/41, 10%). The studies targeted one or more of PCORI’s priority populations, including racial and ethnic minorities (31/41, 41%), people living in rural areas, and those with low income/low socioeconomic status, low health literacy, or disabilities. Major themes identified across these studies included the importance of patient-centered design, cultural tailoring of telehealth solutions, delivering telehealth through trusted intermediaries, partnering with payers to expand telehealth reimbursement, and ensuring confidential sharing of private information. Conclusions Early PCOR evidence suggests that the most effective health system- and provider-level telehealth implementation solutions to address disparities employ patient-centered and culturally tailored telehealth solutions whose development is actively guided by the patients themselves to meet the needs of specific communities and populations. Further, this evidence shows that the best practices in telehealth implementation include delivery of telehealth through trusted intermediaries, close partnership with payers to facilitate reimbursement and sustainability, and safeguards to ensure patient-guided confidential sharing of personal health information.

No abstract