Simani M. Price

Objectives. To explore a key outcome of interest for the Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL) Regional Teams by examining COVID-19 vaccinations over time in US counties where CEAL teams operated and comparing them to demographically similar counties in the same state. Methods. Our evaluation used a nonequivalent control group design. Each county where a CEAL team operated was matched to a unique non-CEAL county in the same state. Components of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability Index were used as the matching criteria. COVID-19 vaccinations (county-level percentage of residents aged 18 years or older who are fully vaccinated) for CEAL and matched counties were analyzed over time. Results. The mean percentage of vaccinated adults was significantly higher in CEAL counties than in matched non-CEAL counties. Sensitivity analyses confirmed conclusions did not change depending on the CEAL cohort or closeness of matches. Conclusions. Our findings support CEAL team efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccinations in target communities and employ community-engaged research more broadly within public health contexts. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S1):S124–S127. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307517 )

Prescribing approved products for unapproved uses (off-label use) is not uncommon among physicians in certain medical specialties. Available evidence about an off-label use – both supportive and unsupportive – can influence prescribers’ decisions about a drug’s appropriateness for a particular case. The objectives of this study were: (1) to examine physician perceptions about off-label uses generally, including their awareness of unsupportive data; and (2) to explore the influence of disclosure information about unsupportive data on off-label prescribing decisions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2019 and January 2020 with oncologists (n = 35) and primary care physicians (n = 35). Interviews explored general prescribing practices, understanding of and information sources for learning about off-label use of prescription drugs, awareness of unsupportive data related to off-label uses, and preferences and reactions to disclosure statements about the existence of unsupportive data related to an off-label use. Most participants reported prescribing drugs for off-label uses (with half reporting regular off-label prescribing). However, among those who prescribe off-label, approximately two-thirds had never seen unsupportive data about off-label uses. Physicians preferred a disclosure statement that provided a summary of the unsupportive data about the off-label use; this statement also led most physicians to say they were unlikely or less likely to prescribe the drug for that use. This study suggests that physicians’ decision-making about prescribing for off-label uses of approved drugs may be influenced by awareness of unsupportive data. Our interviews also suggest that providing more information about unsupportive study findings may result in a reduction in reported prescribing likelihood.

Background: Lack of training among health care providers (HCPs) to safely prescribe opioids is a contributing factor to the opioid crisis. Training and other resources have been developed to educate providers about safe and appropriate opioid prescribing practices. Method: The national survey was conducted with 2000 HCPs representing primary care physicians (PCPs), including family practice, general practice, and internal medicine; specialists (SPs); physician assistants (PAs); and nurse practitioners (NPs), a mix of primary care and specialists. This survey examined exposure to opioid educational information and opioid prescribing. Results: PCPs reported prescribing opioids for chronic pain to significantly more patients compared with other HCP groups. PCPs (89.8%) and NPs (85.5%) reported significantly greater exposure to opioid educational information compared with both SPs (71.9%) and PAs (78.8%). Overall, HCPs had limited knowledge about abuse-deterrent formulations, but PCPs had greater knowledge than other groups. HCPs had an increased likelihood of prescribing opioids to fewer patients in the last 3 months relative to the prior 12 months if they worked in a state or county clinic vs a solo or group practice type (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–3.49) and were exposed to more opioid educational information during the last 12 months (AOR = 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06–1.32). Discussion: HCPs9 exposure to opioid educational information was associated with less opioid prescribing for chronic pain. Findings indicated a difference in exposure and knowledge gaps across provider groups. More information is needed on the content of opioid educational information provided to HCPs.

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) funds a wide range of research studies. Methods development and modeling research (MDMR) are 2 areas of interest, as they can help advance tobacco regulatory science (TRS) by fostering data synthesis and exploration of complex relationships. Our analyses of the CTP portfolio found that 13% of publications focused on MDMR, and the most commonly addressed CTP priority research domains were knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, and toxicity and carcinogenicity. MDMR publications were cited by 1,186 publications, 5 FDA proposed rules and guidance documents, and 3 dockets. MDMR publications are characterized as foundational research and help build the evidence base that informs policy. While MDMR represents a small portion of the CTP research portfolio, they have made important contributions to advancing TRS and informing regulatory actions.

An estimated 1 in 150 infants is born each year with congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV); nearly 1 in 750 suffers permanent disabilities. Congenital CMV is the result of a pregnant woman becoming infected with CMV. Educating pregnant women about CMV is currently the best approach to prevention. Limited research is available on how to effectively communicate with women about CMV. We conducted formative research on fear appeals theory-based messages about CMV and prevention with U.S. women. Fear appeal theories suggest that message recipients will take action if they feel fear. First, we conducted in-depth interviews (N = 32) with women who had young children who tested positive for CMV. Second, we conducted eight focus groups (N = 70) in two phases and two cities (Phase 2: Atlanta, GA; Phase 3: San Diego, CA) with pregnant women and non-pregnant women who had young children. Few participants knew about CMV before the focus groups. Participants reviewed and gave feedback on messages created around fear appeals theory-based communication concepts. The following concepts were tested in one or more of the three phases of research: CMV is severe, CMV is common, CMV is preventable, CMV preventive strategies are similar to other behavior changes women make during pregnancy, CMV preventive strategies can be incorporated in moderation to reduce exposure, and CMV is severe but preventable. Participants recommended communicating that CMV is common by using prevalence ratios (e.g., 1 in 150) or comparing CMV to other well-known disabilities. To convey the severity of CMV, participants preferred stories about CMV along with prevention strategies. Participants also welcomed prevention strategies when it included a message about risk reduction. In general, participants said messages were motivating, even if they felt that it could be difficult to make certain behavior changes. Findings from this research can contribute to future efforts to educate pregnant women about CMV, especially regarding use of fear appeals-based messages. Pregnant women may face certain challenges to practicing prevention strategies but, overall, are motivated make changes to increase their chances of having a healthy baby.