Explore the vast range of titles available.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) of unprecedented scope and duration were implemented to limit community spread of COVID-19. There remains limited evidence about how these measures impacted the lived experience of affected communities. This study captured the early impacts and coping strategies implemented in King County, Washington, one of the first U.S. communities impacted by COVID-19. We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey of 793 English- and Spanish-speaking adult King County residents from March 18, 2020 -May 30, 2020, using voluntary response sampling. The survey included close- and open-ended questions on participant demographics, wellbeing, protective actions, and COVID-19-related concerns, including a freeform narrative response to describe the pandemic's individual-, family- and community-level impacts and associated coping strategies. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze close-ended questions, and qualitative content analysis methods were used to analyze free-form narrative responses. The median age of participants was 45 years old, and 74% were female, 82% were White, and 6% were Hispanic/Latinx; 474 (60%) provided a qualitative narrative. Quantitative findings demonstrated that higher percentages of participants engaged in most types of COVID-19 protective behaviors after the stay-at-home order was implemented and schools and community spaces were closed, relative to before, and that participants tended to report greater concern about the pandemic's physical health or healthcare access impacts than the financial or social impacts. Qualitative data analysis described employment or financial impacts (56%) and vitality coping strategies (65%), intended to support health or positive functioning. This study documented early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the NPIs implemented in response, as well as strategies employed to cope with those impacts, which can inform early-stage policy formation and intervention strategies to mitigate the negative impacts. Future research should explore the endurance and evolution of the early impacts and coping strategies throughout the multiyear pandemic.

Background Over the past two decades, pragmatic and implementation science clinical trial research methods have advanced substantially. Pragmatic and implementation studies have natural areas of overlap, particularly relating to the goal of using clinical trial data to leverage health care system policy changes. Few investigations have addressed pragmatic and implementation science randomized trial methods development while also considering policy impact. Methods The investigation used the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) and PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tools to evaluate the design of two multisite randomized clinical trials that targeted patient-level effectiveness outcomes, provider-level practice changes and health care system policy. Seven raters received PRECIS-2 training and applied the tools in the coding of the two trials. Descriptive statistics were produced for both trials, and PRECIS-2 wheel diagrams were constructed. Interrater agreement was assessed with the Intraclass Correlation (ICC) and Kappa statistics. The Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) qualitative approach was applied to understanding integrative themes derived from the PRECIS-2 ratings and an end-of-study policy summit. Results The ICCs for the composite ratings across the patient and provider-focused PRECIS-2 domains ranged from 0.77 to 0.87, and the Kappa values ranged from 0.25 to 0.37, reflecting overall fair-to-good interrater agreement for both trials. All four PRECIS-2 wheels were rated more pragmatic than explanatory, with composite mean and median scores ≥ 4. Across trials, the primary intent-to-treat analysis domain was consistently rated most pragmatic (mean = 5.0, SD = 0), while the follow-up/data collection domain was rated most explanatory (mean range = 3.14–3.43, SD range = 0.49–0.69). RAPICE field notes identified themes related to potential PRECIS-2 training improvements, as well as policy themes related to using trial data to inform US trauma care system practice change; the policy themes were not captured by the PRECIS-2 ratings. Conclusions The investigation documents that the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS can be simultaneously used to feasibly and reliably characterize clinical trials with patient and provider-level targets. The integration of pragmatic and implementation science clinical trial research methods can be furthered by using common metrics such as the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS. Future study could focus on clinical trial policy research methods development. Trial registration DO-SBIS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00607620. registered on January 29, 2008. TSOS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02655354, registered on July 27, 2015.

ObjectivesAssess the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on service delivery by frontline healthcare providers in acute care medical and emergency department settings and identify strategies used to cope with pandemic-related physical and mental health demands.DesignRapid clinical ethnography of patient–provider encounters during an initial pandemic ‘surge’ conducted by a team of clinician–researchers using a structured protocol for qualitative data collection and analysis.SettingLevel 1 trauma centre at Harborview Hospital in Seattle Washington in April 2020.ParticipantsFrontline clinical providers serving as participant observers during performance of their clinical duties recorded observations and summaries of conversations with other providers and patients.ResultsWe identified four different kinds of impacts: procedural, provider, patient and overall. Each impact highlighted two or more levels of a socioecological model of services delivery: (1) the epidemiology of COVID-19, (2) outer setting, (3) inner or organisational setting and (4) individual patient and provider. Despite significant changes in procedures that included COVID-19 screening of all admitted patients, social distancing and use of personal protective equipment, as well as changes in patient and provider behaviour, the overall impact of the pandemic on the emergency department and acute care service delivery was minimal. This is attributed to having a smaller surge than expected, a quick response by the healthcare system to anticipated demands for service delivery and protection of patients and providers, adequate supplies and high provider morale.ConclusionsAlthough limited to one setting in one healthcare system in one community, the findings offer some important lessons for healthcare systems that have yet to be impacted as well as systems that have been more severely impacted. Each of the socioecological framework levels was found to impact service delivery to patients, and variations at each of these levels account for variations in that quality of care globally.

BackgroundQuestions regarding the extent to which post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is comorbid with alcohol and drug use are particularly germane in an era when the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) is considering policy requiring screening, intervention and/or referral services for patients presenting with psychological sequalae of traumatic injury. Literature review revealed few multisite trauma-center-based investigations that have assessed the association between PTSD symptoms and alcohol and drug use comorbidities in injured patients.MethodsThis investigation was a secondary analysis of baseline data collected prior to randomization in a 25-site trauma center pragmatic clinical trial. All 635 patients included in the investigation had elevated PTSD symptom levels at the time of trauma center admission. Self-report questionnaire screening, laboratory toxicology results, and electronic health record data were combined to assess the frequencies of alcohol, stimulant (i.e., amphetamine and cocaine), opioid and marijuana use comorbidities for injured patients. Logistic regression was used to assess the associations between demographic and injury characteristics and alcohol and drug use comorbidity.ResultsThe frequency of patients with one or more alcohol or substance use comorbidity was between 62% and 79%. Over 50% of patients were positive for one or more alcohol or cannabis comorbidity. Approximately 26% of patients were positive for stimulants and 10% for opioid comorbidity.DiscussionThis multisite investigation suggests that between 62% and 79% of hospitalized injury survivors with elevated PTSD symptoms have one or more alcohol or drug use comorbidity. Orchestrated ACS-COT policy and trauma center service delivery development should incorporate the key finding that a substantial majority of patients with high levels of psychological distress (eg, elevated PTSD symptoms) may have alcohol and drug use comorbidities.Level of evidenceLevel II (epidemiological investigation of untreated controls from a multisite randomized clinical trial)Trial registration numberNCT02655354.

BackgroundAccurate acute care medical utilization history is an important outcome for clinicians and investigators concerned with improving trauma center care. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy of self-report emergency department (ED) utilization compared with utilization obtained from the Emergency Department Information Exchange (EDIE) in admitted trauma surgery patients with comorbid mental health and substance use problems.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of 169 injured patients admitted to the University of Washington’s Harborview Level I Trauma Center. Patients had high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation and alcohol comorbidity. The investigation used EDIE, a novel health technology tool that collects information at the time a patient checks into any ED in Washington and other US states. Patterns of EDIE-documented visits were described, and the accuracy of injured patients’ self-report visits was compared with EDIE-recorded visits during the course of the 12 months prior to the index trauma center admission.ResultsOverall, 45% of the sample (n=76) inaccurately recalled their ED visits during the past year, with 36 participants (21%) reporting less ED visits than EDIE indicated and 40 (24%) reporting more ED visits than EDIE indicated. Patients with histories of alcohol use problems and major psychiatric illness were more likely to either under-report or over-report ED health service use.DiscussionNearly half of all patients were unable to accurately recall ED visits in the previous 12 months compared with EDIE, with almost one-quarter of patients demonstrating high levels of disagreement. The improved accuracy and ease of use when compared with self-report make EDIE an important tool for both clinical and pragmatic trial longitudinal outcome assessments. Orchestrated investigative and policy efforts could further examine the benefits of introducing EDIE and other information exchanges into routine acute care clinical workflows.Level of evidenceII/III.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov NCT02274688.

Background: Wildfire activity in the United States has increased in intensity and duration over the past several decades, disrupting housing, employment, and other social determinants of health in impacted communities. As the cumulative burden of wildfire damage is projected to increase in the coming decades, understanding what constitutes an effective community recovery process is of critical importance. Through qualitative interviews with leaders of long term recovery organizations (LTROs), a key component of wildfire recovery, we explored barriers and facilitators to LTROs’ ability to meet post-wildfire needs related to social determinants of health in rural communities.Methods: We conducted brief surveys and semi-structured interviews with 18 current and former leaders from six LTROs from February to May 2022. Participants held leadership positions on LTROs serving rural communities in Washington, Oregon, and California impacted by wildfire disasters that occurred between 2015-2020. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s (RWJF) Culture of Health Action Framework guided the creation of the semi-structured interview guide and a priori codebook, to examine LTROs’ ability to address social determinants of health from a health equity perspective. Additional codes were added through an inductive approach, and emerging themes were identified.Results: Findings from this study indicate that LTROs face many barriers in meeting post-wildfire community needs related to social determinants of health, including the policies that govern access to key recovery resources and information, the slow arrival of those key resources, the COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts such as rising home prices and shortages of mental health resources, the intertwined nature of community economic health and the restoration of the built environment, and the challenge of forming a functional LTRO structure. However, participants also identified factors that facilitated the ability of LTROs to meet community health needs, such as flexible LTRO governance structure and policies, funding to hire at least one employee, the ability of county, state, and federal government officials to adapt policies and procedures, and close collaboration with other organizations present in the community.Conclusions: Policies and other factors at the societal level, community-level recovery barriers, and organizational characteristics of LTROs themselves influence LTROs’ ability to address the social determinants of health in the aftermath of a wildfire disaster. The findings of this study suggest the need for policy improvements to promote more equitable access to key recovery resources, that economic recovery of individuals and the community should be seen as a core LTRO function, and that recovery planning should be incorporated into community disaster preparedness activities. Future research should focus on the role of LTROs in other contexts and in response to other disasters.

As the Duwamish Valley community in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. and other environmental justice communities nationally contend with growing risks from climate change, there have been calls for a more community-centered approach to understanding impacts and priorities to inform resilience planning. To engage community members and identify climate justice and resilience priorities, a partnership of community leaders, government-based practitioners, and academics co-produced a survey instrument and collected data from the community using the Seattle Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (SASPER), an approach adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER). In addition, we conducted a process and outcome project evaluation using quantitative survey data collected from volunteers and qualitative semi-structured interviews with project team members. In October and November 2022, teams of volunteers from partner organizations collected 162 surveys from households in the Duwamish Valley. Poor air quality, extreme heat, and wildfires were among the highest reported hazards of concern. Most Duwamish Valley households agreed or strongly agreed that their neighborhood has a strong sense of community (64%) and that they have people nearby to call when they need help (69%). Forty-seven percent of households indicated willingness to get involved with resilience planning, and 62% of households said that they would use a Resilience Hub during an emergency. Survey volunteers evaluated their participation positively, with over 85% agreeing or strongly agreeing that they learned new skills, were prepared for the survey, and would participate in future assessments. The evaluation interviews underscored that while the SASPER may have demonstrated feasibility in a pre-disaster phase, CASPER may not meet all community/partner needs in the immediate disaster response phase because of its lack of focus on equity and logistical requirements. Future research should focus on identifying less resource intensive data collection approaches that maintain the rigor and reputation of CASPER while enabling a focus on equity.

BackgroundAt the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) of unprecedented scope and duration were implemented to limit community spread of COVID-19. There remains limited evidence about how these measures impacted the lived experience of affected communities. This study captured the early impacts and coping strategies implemented in King County, Washington, one of the first U.S. communities impacted by COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey of 793 English- and Spanish-speaking adult King County residents from March 18, 2020 -May 30, 2020, using voluntary response sampling. The survey included close- and open-ended questions on participant demographics, wellbeing, protective actions, and COVID-19-related concerns, including a freeform narrative response to describe the pandemic's individual-, family- and community-level impacts and associated coping strategies. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze close-ended questions, and qualitative content analysis methods were used to analyze free-form narrative responses.ResultsThe median age of participants was 45 years old, and 74% were female, 82% were White, and 6% were Hispanic/Latinx; 474 (60%) provided a qualitative narrative. Quantitative findings demonstrated that higher percentages of participants engaged in most types of COVID-19 protective behaviors after the stay-at-home order was implemented and schools and community spaces were closed, relative to before, and that participants tended to report greater concern about the pandemic's physical health or healthcare access impacts than the financial or social impacts. Qualitative data analysis described employment or financial impacts (56%) and vitality coping strategies (65%), intended to support health or positive functioning.ConclusionsThis study documented early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the NPIs implemented in response, as well as strategies employed to cope with those impacts, which can inform early-stage policy formation and intervention strategies to mitigate the negative impacts. Future research should explore the endurance and evolution of the early impacts and coping strategies throughout the multiyear pandemic.

A rapid ethnographic assessment of delivery of mental health services to patients at a Level I trauma center in a major metropolitan hospital undergoing a COVID-19 surge was conducted to assess the challenges involved in services delivery and to compare the experience of delivering services across time. Study participants were patients and providers who interacted with or otherwise were observed by three clinicians engaged in the delivery of care within the Emergency Department (ED) and Trauma Center at Harborview Medical Center from the COVID-19-related “surge” in April to the end of July 2020. Data were collected and analyzed in accordance with the Rapid Assessment Procedures-Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) protocol. Community and institutional efforts to control the spread of the coronavirus created several challenges to providing mental health services in an acute care setting during the April surge. Most of these challenges were successfully addressed by standardization of infection control protocols, but new challenges emerged including an increase in expenses for infection control and reduction in clinical revenues due to fewer patients, furloughs of mental health services providers and peer specialists in the ED, services not provided or delayed, increased stress due to fear of furloughs or increased workload of those not furloughed, and increases in patients seen with injuries due to risky behavior, violence, and substance use. These findings illustrate the rapidly shifting nature of the pandemic, its impacts on mental health services, and the mitigation efforts of communities and healthcare systems.

Anita Levesque's sales career has come a long way since she refused to join the Girl Scouts. \"I didn't want to sell cookies door to door,\" she recalls. Today this effervescent 32-year-old woman serves as general manager of Springfield's Imperial Outdoor Advertising \"selling Springfield from start to finish.\" Levesque sits at the helm of Imperial's $500,000 in annual billings business handling an average of 50 accounts monthly. Levesque and her staff of eight lease property, build, sell and rotate posters over 350 billboards in Springfield and Lincoln. (excerpt)