Search

Abstract Background Implementation research generally assumes established evidence-based practices and prior piloting of implementation strategies, which may not be feasible during a public health emergency. We describe the use of a simulation model of the effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation strategies to inform a stakeholder-engaged process of rapidly designing a tailored intervention and implementation strategy for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) in group homes in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized trial. Methods We used a validated dynamic microsimulation model of COVID-19 transmission and disease in late 2020/early 2021 to determine the most effective strategies to mitigate infections among Massachusetts group home staff and residents. Model inputs were informed by data from stakeholders, public records, and published literature. We assessed different prevention strategies, iterated over time with input from multidisciplinary stakeholders and pandemic evolution, including varying symptom screening, testing frequency, isolation, contact-time, use of personal protective equipment, and vaccination. Model outcomes included new infections in group home residents, new infections in group home staff, and resident hospital days. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter uncertainty. Results of the simulations informed a stakeholder-engaged process to select components of a tailored best practice intervention and implementation strategy. Results The largest projected decrease in infections was with initial vaccination, with minimal benefit for additional routine testing. The initial level of actual vaccination in the group homes was estimated to reduce resident infections by 72.4% and staff infections by 55.9% over the 90-day time horizon. Increasing resident and staff vaccination uptake to a target goal of 90% further decreased resident infections by 45.2% and staff infections by 51.3%. Subsequent simulated removal of masking led to a 6.5% increase in infections among residents and 3.2% among staff. The simulation model results were presented to multidisciplinary stakeholders and policymakers to inform the “Tailored Best Practice” package for the hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Conclusions Vaccination and decreasing vaccine hesitancy among staff were predicted to have the greatest impact in mitigating COVID-19 risk in vulnerable populations of group home residents and staff. Simulation modeling was effective in rapidly informing the selection of the prevention and implementation strategy in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Future implementation may benefit from this approach when rapid deployment is necessary in the absence of data on tailored interventions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04726371

Abstract Background People with serious mental illness (SMI) and people with intellectual disabilities/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are at higher risk for COVID-19 and more severe outcomes. We compare a tailored versus general best practice COVID-19 prevention program in group homes (GHs) for people with SMI or ID/DD in Massachusetts (MA). Methods A hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized control trial compared a four-component implementation strategy (Tailored Best Practices: TBP) to dissemination of standard prevention guidelines (General Best-Practices: GBP) in GHs across six MA behavioral health agencies. GBP consisted of standard best practices for preventing COVID-19. TBP included GBP plus four components including: (1) trusted-messenger peer testimonials on benefits of vaccination; (2) motivational interviewing; (3) interactive education on preventive practices; and (4) fidelity feedback dashboards for GHs. Primary implementation outcomes were full COVID-19 vaccination rates (baseline: 1/1/2021–3/31/2021) and fidelity scores (baseline: 5/1/21–7/30/21), at 3-month intervals to 15-month follow-up until October 2022. The primary effectiveness outcome was COVID-19 infection (baseline: 1/1/2021–3/31/2021), measured every 3 months to 15-month follow-up. Cumulative incidence of vaccinations were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox frailty models evaluate differences in vaccination uptake and secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models (LMMs) and Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were used to evaluate differences in fidelity scores and incidence of COVID-19 infections. Results GHs (n=415) were randomized to TBP (n=208) and GBP (n=207) including 3,836 residents (1,041 ID/DD; 2,795 SMI) and 5,538 staff. No differences were found in fidelity scores or COVID-19 incidence rates between TBP and GBP, however TBP had greater acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. No overall differences in vaccination rates were found between TBP and GBP. However, among unvaccinated group home residents with mental disabilities, non-White residents achieved full vaccination status at double the rate for TBP (28.6%) compared to GBP (14.4%) at 15 months. Additionally, the impact of TBP on vaccine uptake was over two-times greater for non-White residents compared to non-Hispanic White residents (ratio of HR for TBP between non-White and non-Hispanic White: 2.28, p = 0.03). Conclusion Tailored COVID-19 prevention strategies are beneficial as a feasible and acceptable implementation strategy with the potential to reduce disparities in vaccine acceptance among the subgroup of non-White individuals with mental disabilities. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04726371, 27/01/2021. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04726371 .

Background: Patient care restrictions created by the COVID-19 pandemic constrained medical students’ ability to interact directly with patients. Additionally, organ transplant recipients faced increasing isolation due to the rise of telemedicine, the importance of social distancing and their immunosuppressed state. We created a pilot program to pair students with transplant patients for structured, virtual encounters and studied its impact on medical students and patients. Methods: In May 2020, medical students conducted virtual visits with patients via telephone or video conferencing. Patients and students were surveyed regarding their experiences and independent focus groups were conducted. The survey responses and focus group discussions were deidentified, transcribed, and analyzed for themes. Results: Ten participating students were in their first, second, or final year of medical school. The 14 patients were liver or kidney transplant recipients or kidney donors. All interactions lasted longer than 30 minutes, with 56% greater than 1 hour. Three themes emerged related to the student experience: improvement of their clinical communication skills, development of knowledge and attitudes related to organ transplantation and donation, and independent management of a patient encounter. Three themes related to the patient experience: appreciation of the opportunity to share their personal patient experience to help educate future physicians, a cathartic and personally illuminating experience and an opportunity to share the message of donation. Conclusions: This pilot program provided a novel opportunity for virtual student-patient interactions that was feasible, well-received, and mutually beneficial. The use of virtual non-medical patient experiences allowed for experiential learning during which students learned about both clinical medicine and enhanced their communication skills directly from patients. Additionally, patients were able to engage with medical students in a new way, as teachers of clinical interactions, and reported a high level of satisfaction in addition to deriving personal benefit.