Effects of behavioral intervention components to increase COVID-19 testing for African American/Black and Latine frontline essential workers not up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccination: Results of an optimization randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Marya Gwadz, Siyu Heng, Charles M Cleland, Jillian Strayhorn, Jennifer A Robinson, Fernanda Gonzalez Blanco Serrano, Pengyun Wang, Lalitha Parameswaran, Rauly Chero
{"title":"Effects of behavioral intervention components to increase COVID-19 testing for African American/Black and Latine frontline essential workers not up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccination: Results of an optimization randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Marya Gwadz, Siyu Heng, Charles M Cleland, Jillian Strayhorn, Jennifer A Robinson, Fernanda Gonzalez Blanco Serrano, Pengyun Wang, Lalitha Parameswaran, Rauly Chero","doi":"10.1007/s10865-025-00566-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19, including incidence, hospitalization, and death rates, are serious and persistent. Among those at highest risk for COVID-19 and its adverse effects are African American/Black and Latine (AABL) frontline essential workers in public-facing occupations (e.g., food services, retail). Testing for COVID-19 in various scenarios (when exposed or symptomatic, regular screening testing) is an essential component of the COVID-19 control strategy in the United States. However, AABL frontline workers have serious barriers to COVID-19 testing at the individual (insufficient knowledge, distrust, cognitive biases), social (norms), and structural levels of influence (access). Thus, testing rates are insufficient and interventions are needed. The present study is grounded in the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) framework. It tests the main and interaction effects of a set of candidate behavioral intervention components to increase COVID-19 testing rates in this population. The study enrolled adult AABL frontline essential workers who were not up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccination nor recently tested for COVID-19. It used a factorial design to examine the effects of candidate behavioral intervention components, where each component was designed to address a specific barrier to COVID-19 testing. All participants received a core intervention comprised of health education. The candidate components were motivational interviewing counseling (MIC), a behavioral economics intervention (BEI), peer education (PE), and access to testing (either self-test kits [SK] or a navigation meeting [NM]). The primary outcome was COVID-19 testing in the follow-up period. Participants were assessed at baseline, randomly assigned to one of 16 experimental conditions, and assessed six- and 12-weeks later. The study was carried out in English and Spanish. We used a logistic regression model and multiple imputation to examine the main and interaction effects of the four factors (representing components): MIC, BEI, PE, and Access. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis using the complete case analysis. Participants (N = 438) were 35 years old on average (SD = 10). Half identified as men/male (52%), and 48% as women/female/other. Almost half (49%) were African American/Black, and 51% were Latine/Hispanic (12% participated in Spanish). A total of 32% worked in food services. Attendance in components was very high (~ 99%). BEI had positive effect on the outcome (OR = 1.543; 95% CI: [0.977, 2.438]; p-value = 0.063) as did Access, in favor of SK (OR = 1.351; 95% CI: [0.859, 2.125]; p-value = 0.193). We found a three-way interaction among MIC*PE*Access (OR: 0.576; 95% CI: [0.367, 0.903]; p-value = 0.016): when MIC was present, SK tended to increase COVID testing when PE was not present. The study advances intervention science and takes the first step toward creating an efficient and effective multi-component intervention to increase COVID-19 testing rates in AABL frontline workers.</p>","PeriodicalId":48329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-025-00566-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19, including incidence, hospitalization, and death rates, are serious and persistent. Among those at highest risk for COVID-19 and its adverse effects are African American/Black and Latine (AABL) frontline essential workers in public-facing occupations (e.g., food services, retail). Testing for COVID-19 in various scenarios (when exposed or symptomatic, regular screening testing) is an essential component of the COVID-19 control strategy in the United States. However, AABL frontline workers have serious barriers to COVID-19 testing at the individual (insufficient knowledge, distrust, cognitive biases), social (norms), and structural levels of influence (access). Thus, testing rates are insufficient and interventions are needed. The present study is grounded in the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) framework. It tests the main and interaction effects of a set of candidate behavioral intervention components to increase COVID-19 testing rates in this population. The study enrolled adult AABL frontline essential workers who were not up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccination nor recently tested for COVID-19. It used a factorial design to examine the effects of candidate behavioral intervention components, where each component was designed to address a specific barrier to COVID-19 testing. All participants received a core intervention comprised of health education. The candidate components were motivational interviewing counseling (MIC), a behavioral economics intervention (BEI), peer education (PE), and access to testing (either self-test kits [SK] or a navigation meeting [NM]). The primary outcome was COVID-19 testing in the follow-up period. Participants were assessed at baseline, randomly assigned to one of 16 experimental conditions, and assessed six- and 12-weeks later. The study was carried out in English and Spanish. We used a logistic regression model and multiple imputation to examine the main and interaction effects of the four factors (representing components): MIC, BEI, PE, and Access. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis using the complete case analysis. Participants (N = 438) were 35 years old on average (SD = 10). Half identified as men/male (52%), and 48% as women/female/other. Almost half (49%) were African American/Black, and 51% were Latine/Hispanic (12% participated in Spanish). A total of 32% worked in food services. Attendance in components was very high (~ 99%). BEI had positive effect on the outcome (OR = 1.543; 95% CI: [0.977, 2.438]; p-value = 0.063) as did Access, in favor of SK (OR = 1.351; 95% CI: [0.859, 2.125]; p-value = 0.193). We found a three-way interaction among MIC*PE*Access (OR: 0.576; 95% CI: [0.367, 0.903]; p-value = 0.016): when MIC was present, SK tended to increase COVID testing when PE was not present. The study advances intervention science and takes the first step toward creating an efficient and effective multi-component intervention to increase COVID-19 testing rates in AABL frontline workers.

行为干预成分对未接种COVID-19疫苗的非裔美国人/黑人和拉丁裔一线基本工作者增加COVID-19检测的影响:一项优化随机对照试验结果
COVID-19的种族/族裔差异,包括发病率、住院率和死亡率,是严重和持续的。感染COVID-19及其不利影响的风险最高的人群是面向公众职业(如食品服务、零售)的非裔美国人/黑人和拉丁裔(AABL)一线基本工作者。在不同情况下检测COVID-19(暴露或有症状时,定期筛查检测)是美国COVID-19控制战略的重要组成部分。然而,AABL一线工作人员在个人(知识不足、不信任、认知偏见)、社会(规范)和结构性影响(获取)层面上面临着严重的COVID-19检测障碍。因此,检测率不足,需要采取干预措施。本研究基于多相优化策略(MOST)框架。它测试了一组候选行为干预成分的主要作用和相互作用,以提高这一人群的COVID-19检测率。该研究招募了成年AABL一线基本工作人员,他们既没有最新的COVID-19疫苗接种,也没有最近进行过COVID-19检测。它使用析因设计来检查候选行为干预成分的影响,其中每个成分都被设计用于解决COVID-19检测的特定障碍。所有参与者都接受了包括健康教育在内的核心干预。候选成分包括动机性访谈咨询(MIC)、行为经济学干预(BEI)、同伴教育(PE)和获得测试(自测套件[SK]或导航会议[NM])。主要结果为随访期间的COVID-19检测。参与者在基线进行评估,随机分配到16个实验条件之一,并在6周和12周后进行评估。这项研究用英语和西班牙语进行。我们使用逻辑回归模型和多重插值来检验MIC、BEI、PE和Access四个因子(代表成分)的主效应和交互效应。我们还使用完整的案例分析进行了敏感性分析。参与者(N = 438)平均年龄为35岁(SD = 10)。一半认为是男性/男性(52%),48%认为是女性/女性/其他。几乎一半(49%)是非洲裔美国人/黑人,51%是拉丁裔/西班牙裔(12%是西班牙裔)。共有32%的人在食品服务业工作。组件的出勤率非常高(~ 99%)。BEI对预后有积极影响(OR = 1.543;95% ci: [0.977, 2.438];p值= 0.063),Access也一样,SK更有利(OR = 1.351;95% ci: [0.859, 2.125];p值= 0.193)。我们发现MIC*PE*Access之间存在三向交互作用(OR: 0.576;95% ci: [0.367, 0.903];p值= 0.016):MIC存在时,SK倾向于在PE不存在时增加COVID检测。该研究推动了干预科学的发展,为创建高效有效的多组分干预措施,提高AABL一线工作人员的COVID-19检测率迈出了第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Journal of Behavioral Medicine PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Medicine is a broadly conceived interdisciplinary publication devoted to furthering understanding of physical health and illness through the knowledge, methods, and techniques of behavioral science. A significant function of the journal is the application of this knowledge to prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation and to the promotion of health at the individual, community, and population levels.The content of the journal spans all areas of basic and applied behavioral medicine research, conducted in and informed by all related disciplines including but not limited to: psychology, medicine, the public health sciences, sociology, anthropology, health economics, nursing, and biostatistics. Topics welcomed include but are not limited to: prevention of disease and health promotion; the effects of psychological stress on physical and psychological functioning; sociocultural influences on health and illness; adherence to medical regimens; the study of health related behaviors including tobacco use, substance use, sexual behavior, physical activity, and obesity; health services research; and behavioral factors in the prevention and treatment of somatic disorders.  Reports of interdisciplinary approaches to research are particularly welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信