Search

Background: Recent observational studies suggest that vaccines may have little effect in preventing infection with the Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the observed effects may be confounded by patient factors, preventive behaviours, or differences in testing behaviour. To assess potential confounding, we examined differences in testing behaviour between unvaccinated and vaccinated populations., Methods: We recruited 1,526 Australian adults for an online randomized study about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing in late 2021, collecting self-reported vaccination status and three measures of COVID-19 testing behaviour: testing in past month or ever and test intention if they woke with a sore throat. We examined the association between testing intentions and vaccination status in the trial's baseline data., Results: Of the 1,526 participants (mean age 31 y), 22% had a COVID-19 test in the past month and 61% ever; 17% were unvaccinated, 11% were partially vaccinated (one dose), and 71% were fully vaccinated (two or more doses). Fully vaccinated participants were twice as likely as those who were unvaccinated (relative risk [RR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.8 to 2.8, p < 0.001) to report positive COVID testing intentions. Partially vaccinated participants had less positive intentions than fully vaccinated participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89, p < 0.001) but higher intentions than unvaccinated participants (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.6, p = 0.002)., Discussion: Vaccination predicted greater COVID-19 testing intentions and would substantially bias observed vaccine effectiveness. To account for differential testing behaviours, test-negative designs are currently the preferred option, but their assumptions need more thorough examination., (Copyright © 2022, Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada (AMMI Canada).)

Competing Interests: GM-K is a volunteer committee member of the Australian Skeptics Society. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Background: Misinformation about COVID-19 is common and has been spreading rapidly across the globe through social media platforms and other information systems. Understanding what the public knows about COVID-19 and identifying beliefs based on misinformation can help shape effective public health communications to ensure efforts to reduce viral transmission are not undermined., Objective: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and factors associated with COVID-19 misinformation in Australia and their changes over time., Methods: This prospective, longitudinal national survey was completed by adults (18 years and above) across April (n=4362), May (n=1882), and June (n=1369) 2020., Results: Stronger agreement with misinformation was associated with younger age, male gender, lower education level, and language other than English spoken at home (P<.01 for all). After controlling for these variables, misinformation beliefs were significantly associated (P<.001) with lower levels of digital health literacy, perceived threat of COVID-19, confidence in government, and trust in scientific institutions. Analyses of specific government-identified misinformation revealed 3 clusters: prevention (associated with male gender and younger age), causation (associated with lower education level and greater social disadvantage), and cure (associated with younger age). Lower institutional trust and greater rejection of official government accounts were associated with stronger agreement with COVID-19 misinformation., Conclusions: The findings of this study highlight important gaps in communication effectiveness, which must be addressed to ensure effective COVID-19 prevention., (©Kristen Pickles, Erin Cvejic, Brooke Nickel, Tessa Copp, Carissa Bonner, Julie Leask, Julie Ayre, Carys Batcup, Samuel Cornell, Thomas Dakin, Rachael H Dodd, Jennifer M J Isautier, Kirsten J McCaffery. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 07.01.2021.)

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has rapidly been adopted to deliver health care services around the world. To date, studies have not compared people's experiences with telehealth services during the pandemic in Australia to their experiences with traditional in-person visits., Objective: This study aimed to compare participants' perceptions of telehealth consults to their perceptions of traditional in-person visits and investigate whether people believe that telehealth services would be useful after the pandemic., Methods: A national, cross-sectional, community survey was conducted between June 5 and June 12, 2020 in Australia. In total, 1369 participants who were aged ≥18 years and lived in Australia were recruited via targeted advertisements on social media (ie, Facebook and Instagram). Participants responded to survey questions about their telehealth experience, which included a free-text response option. A generalized linear model was used to estimate the adjusted relative risks of having a poorer telehealth experience than a traditional in-person visit experience. Content analysis was performed to determine the reasons why telehealth experiences were worse than traditional in-person visit experiences., Results: Of the 596 telehealth users, the majority of respondents (n=369, 61.9%) stated that their telehealth experience was "just as good as" or "better than" their traditional in-person medical appointment experience. On average, respondents perceived that telehealth would be moderately useful to very useful for medical appointments after the COVID-19 pandemic ends (mean 3.67, SD 1.1). Being male (P=.007), having a history of both depression and anxiety (P=.016), and lower patient activation scores (ie, individuals' willingness to take on the role of managing their health/health care) (P=.036) were significantly associated with a poor telehealth experience. In total, 6 overarching themes were identified from free-text responses for why participants' telehealth experiences were poorer than their traditional in-person medical appointment experiences, as follows: communication is not as effective, limitations with technology, issues with obtaining prescriptions and pathology results, reduced confidence in their doctor, additional burden for complex care, and inability to be physically examined., Conclusions: Based on our sample's responses, telehealth appointment experiences were comparable to traditional in-person medical appointment experiences. Telehealth may be worthwhile as a mode of health care delivery while the pandemic continues, and it may continue to be worthwhile after the pandemic., (©Jennifer MJ Isautier, Tessa Copp, Julie Ayre, Erin Cvejic, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Carys Batcup, Carissa Bonner, Rachael Dodd, Brooke Nickel, Kristen Pickles, Samuel Cornell, Thomas Dakin, Kirsten J McCaffery. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 10.12.2020.)