ALBERT

Description: Background The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the US has been immensely successful in vaccinating those who are receptive, further increases in vaccination rates however will require more innovative approaches to reach those who remain hesitant. Developing vaccination strategies that are modelled on what people want could further increase uptake. Methods and findings To inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies that are aligned with public preferences we conducted a discrete choice experiment among the US public (N = 2,895) between March 15 to March 22, 2021. We applied sampling weights, evaluated mean preferences using mixed logit models, and identified latent class preference subgroups. On average, the public prioritized ease, preferring single to two dose vaccinations (mean preference: -0.29; 95%CI: -0.37 to -0.20), vaccinating once rather than annually (mean preference: -0.79; 95%CI: -0.89 to -0.70) and reducing waiting times at vaccination sites. Vaccine enforcement reduced overall vaccine acceptance (mean preference -0.20; 95%CI: -0.30 to -0.10), with a trend of increasing resistance to enforcement with increasing vaccine hesitancy. Latent class analysis identified four distinct preference phenotypes: the first prioritized inherent “vaccine features” (46.1%), the second were concerned about vaccine “service delivery” (8.8%), a third group desired “social proof” of vaccine safety and were susceptible to enforcement (13.2%), and the fourth group were “indifferent” to vaccine and service delivery features and resisted enforcement (31.9%). Conclusions This study identifies several critical insights for the COVID-19 public health response. First, identifying preference segments is essential to ensure that vaccination services meet the needs of diverse population subgroups. Second, making vaccination easy and promoting autonomy by simplifying services and offering the public choices (where feasible) may increase uptake in those who remain deliberative. And, third vaccine mandates have the potential to increase vaccination rates in susceptible groups but may simultaneously promote control aversion and resistance in those who are most hesitant.

Description: Background Despite recognition of the importance of stakeholder input into research, there is a lack of validated measures to assess how well constituencies are engaged and their input integrated into research design. Measurement theory suggests that a community engagement measure should use clear and simple language and capture important components of underlying constructs, resulting in a valid measure that is accessible to a broad audience. Objective The primary objective of this study was to evaluate how community members understood and responded to a measure of community engagement developed to be reliable, valid, easily administered, and broadly usable. Method Cognitive response interviews were completed, during which participants described their reactions to items and how they processed them. Participants were asked to interpret item meaning, paraphrase items, and identify difficult or problematic terms and phrases, as well as provide any concerns with response options while responding to 16 of 32 survey items. Results The results of the cognitive response interviews of participants (N = 16) suggest concerns about plain language and literacy, clarity of question focus, and the lack of context clues to facilitate processing in response to items querying research experience. Minimal concerns were related to response options. Participants suggested changes in words and terms, as well as item structure. Conclusion Qualitative research can improve the validity and accessibility of measures that assess stakeholder experience of community-engaged research. The findings suggest wording and sentence structure changes that improve ability to assess implementation of community engagement and its impact on research outcomes.

Description: The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) examines the level of partner engagement in research studies. This study used mixed methods, including web-based surveys (N = 336), a modified Delphi process (N = 18), and cognitive response interviews (N = 16), with convenience sampling to develop and validate a short version of the REST. We conducted factor analysis and calculated internal consistency for the condensed REST. We validated the condensed REST against the comprehensive REST. All analyses were carried out on two scales (quality and quantity) based on Likert-type response options. We examined convergent validity with other measures theoretically associated with the REST (e.g., the Community Engagement Research Index and the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool). This study produced a 9-item condensed version of the REST. The condensed REST loads on 1 factor, has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92 for the quantity scale; 0.94 for the quality scale), is significantly correlated (ρ = 0.97; p 〈 0.001 for both scales) with the comprehensive (32-item) REST, and has negligible, low, and moderate correlation with other measures (e.g., the Partnership Assessment In community-based Research, trust in medical researchers, and the Coalition Self-Assessment Survey). Use of the condensed REST will reduce participant burden and time to complete. This standardized and validated quantitative measure is useful to compare engagement across projects or within a project over time.