Faculty Bibliography

Maximizing vaccine uptake is critical for the optimal implementation of COVID-19 immunization programs. Indicators of socioeconomic status (SES) have been associated with variations in COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the United States. The present study investigates COVID-19 vaccination behavior in individuals with history of COVID-19 infection, with the specific goal of understanding whether experiences during illness explain socioeconomic disproportionalities in vaccine uptake. We leveraged a large sample of adults (n = 1584) infected with COVID-19 in NYC to examine this question, investigating whether specific experiences during illness explained the association between socioeconomic status and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Data from this study were collected during February and March 2021. Principal component analysis was used to create three composite variables that measure distinct COVID-19 related experiences: infection-related health impacts, pandemic-related psychosocial disruption, and perceived quality of medical care during COVID-19 illness. Neither infection-related impacts nor psychosocial disruption were related to vaccine hesitancy after adjusting for related sociodemographic covariates. However, perceptions of higher quality care received during COVID-19 illness predicted decreased COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Furthermore, mediation analysis revealed that perceived care quality during COVID-19 illness mediate the relationship between objective socioeconomic risk and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. These findings highlight patient-reported care quality during illness as a novel target that may increase vaccine uptake among socioeconomically vulnerable populations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Toxic metal exposures have been associated with cardiovascular disease in adults and growing evidence suggests metal exposures also adversely affect cardiovascular phenotypes in childhood and adolescence. However, to our knowledge, the influence of perinatal metals exposure, particularly metal mixtures, in relation to cardiovascular-related outcomes have not been comprehensively reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:We summarized 17 contemporary studies (2017-2021) that investigated the impact of perinatal metal exposures on measures of cardiovascular health in children. Accumulating evidence supports a potential adverse impact of perinatal Pb exposure on BP in children. Fewer recent studies have focused on perinatal As, Hg, and Cd; thus, the cardiovascular impacts of these metals are less clear. Studies of metal mixtures demonstrate that interactions between metals may be complex and have identified numerous understudied elements and essential metals, including Mo, Co, Ni, Se, Zn, and Mn, which may influence cardiovascular risk. A key question that remains is whether perinatal metals exposure influences cardiovascular health into adulthood. Comparisons across studies remain challenging due to several factors, including differences in the timing of exposure/outcome assessments and exposure biomarkers, as well as variability in exposure levels and mixture compositions across populations. Future studies longitudinally investigating trajectories of cardiovascular outcomes could help determine the influence of perinatal metals exposure on long-term effects of clinical relevance in later life and whether interventions, which reduce metals exposures during this key developmental window, could alter disease development.

Background: People who use drugs (PWUD) are at high risk for COVID-19 infection, morbidity, and mortality. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at reducing serious illness and death from COVID-19. There are sparse data on the perceptions and willingness of PWUD to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Materials and Methods: In order to assess the perceptions of, and willingness to receive, COVID-19 vaccination among PWUD, we conducted a rapid survey-based assessment of 100 PWUD in NYC (Spring 2021) who reported not having received COVID-19 vaccination and who reported past 30-day illicit drug use. Results: More than 80% of respondents agreed that personally receiving a COVID-19 vaccine was important for the health of others in the community, and endorsing this belief was significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccine willingness reflecting a high prevalence of altruistic beliefs (p-value: 0.01). Other reported perceptions that were significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccine willingness were believing that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for PWUD and trusting COVID-19 information from their healthcare providers (p-values < 0.05). That said, 62% reported being unwilling to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and 70−83% had concerns about general vaccine safety/efficacy. Examining pairs of questions to explore potential ambivalence between vaccine endorsement and vaccine concerns identified that 56−65% simultaneously reported vaccine safety/efficacy concerns and beliefs that vaccination was an important intervention. Of the 75 respondents who reported past 30-day use of harm reduction and/or substance use disorder (SUD) programs, nearly 90% reported these programs as trusted sources of COVID-19 information. Conclusion: Most participants reported altruistic beliefs about the role of vaccines for community health, including COVID-19 vaccines, and this altruism was associated with willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19. These findings suggest a complex relationship between beliefs about the role of vaccination in community health and the safety/efficacy of vaccines; this ambivalence suggests that COVID-19 vaccine willingness may not be firmly fixed, indicating potential opportunities to address questions and build vaccine confidence. Harm reduction and SUD programs could be leveraged to further engage PWUD in receipt of COVID-19 information and/or vaccination. Recognizing vaccine ambivalence, emphasizing collective and individual benefits of vaccination, and messaging from trusted sources may be promising approaches to increase vaccination in this population.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Measuring implementation outcomes for digital mental health interventions is essential for examining the effective delivery of these interventions. The "Implementation Outcome Scale of Digital Mental Health" (iOSDMH) has been validated and used in several trials. This study aimed to compare the iOSDMH for participants in six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving web-based interventions and to discuss the implications of the iOSDMH for improving the interventions. Additionally, this study examined the associations between iOSDMH scores and program completion rate (adherence). METHODS:Variations in total scores and subscales of the iOSDMH were compared in six RCTs of digital mental health interventions conducted in Japan. The web-based intervention programs were based on cognitive behavioral therapy (2 programs), behavioral activation (1 program), acceptance and commitment (1 program), a combination of mindfulness, behavioral activation, and physical activity (1 program), and government guidelines for suicide prevention (1 program). Participants were full-time employees (2 programs), perinatal women (2 programs), working mothers with children (1 program), and students (1 program). The total score and subscale scores were tested using analysis of variance for between-group differences. RESULTS:Total score and subscale scores of the iOSDMH among six trials showed a significant group difference, reflecting users' perceptions of how each program was implemented, including aspects such as acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, overall satisfaction, and harm. Subscale scores showed positive associations with completion rate, especially in terms of acceptability and satisfaction (R-squared = 0.93 and 0.89, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The iOSDMH may be a useful tool for evaluating participants' perceptions of features implemented in web-based interventions, which could contribute to improvements and further development of the intervention.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Discrimination is a major contributor to health disparities between Black and White older adults. Although the health effects of discrimination are well established, less is known about factors that may intervene in the discrimination-health connection, such as coping strategies. The study aim was to determine whether John Henryism (JH; high-effort coping) moderates the association between racial discrimination and hypertension in nationally representative samples of older African Americans and Caribbean Blacks. METHODS:The analytic sample was drawn from the National Survey of American Life-Reinterview, which was conducted 2001-2003, and included African Americans (N = 546) and Caribbean Blacks (N = 141) aged 55 and older. Study variables included racial discrimination, JH, and hypertension. Logistic regressions, which controlled key sociodemographic differences, were used to test the study aim. RESULTS:Among both Black ethnic groups, discrimination and JH were not associated with hypertension. For African Americans low and moderate in JH, discrimination was unrelated to hypertension; discrimination was positively associated with hypertension for African Americans high in JH. For Caribbean Blacks, discrimination was positively associated with hypertension among respondents low in JH. Among Caribbean Blacks moderate and high in JH, discrimination was not associated with hypertension. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The findings indicate that JH, in the face of discrimination, is associated with hypertension of older African Americans but may be an effective coping strategy for older Caribbean Blacks due to cultural and sociodemographic differences between the 2 ethnic groups. Future research should investigate the differing mechanisms by which JH influences health in heterogeneous older Black populations.