Search

Objectives: To determine whether actual community-level risk for COVID-19 in the Black community influenced "individual" perceptions of community-level and personal risk and how self-assessment of personal risk was reflected in the adoption of COVID-19 precautionary behaviors. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 Black Chicago adults from February to July 2021. A grounded theory approach was used for the qualitative analysis and initial, focused, and theoretical coding were performed. Results: We developed a grounded model consisting of four major themes: (a) Pre-Existing Health Conditions; (b) Presence of COVID-19 Infection in Participant Social Network; (c) COVID-19-Related Information, Participant Trust, and Perceived Personal Risk; and (d) Perceived Higher Burden of COVID-19 in the Black Community. Conclusions: Higher perceptions of personal risk were shaped by pre-existing health conditions and experiences with COVID-19 in one's social network but were not influenced by perceived higher burden of COVID-19 in the Black community. Policy Implications: Black adults' perceptions of their individual risk and precautionary behaviors were not congruent with public health data and recommendations. Therefore, COVID-19 messaging and mitigation should be informed by local community engagement and transparent communication.

Hopelessness is associated with decreased physical activity (PA) and increased adverse events and death in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). Rates of PA in patients with IHD continue to be low in both hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation and home settings. While researchers have investigated strategies to increase PA among patients with IHD, interventions to promote PA specifically in IHD patients who report hopelessness are lacking. We describe the protocol for a NIH-funded randomized controlled trial designed to establish the effectiveness of a 6-week intervention (Heart Up!) to promote increased PA in IHD patients who report hopelessness. Participants (n = 225) are randomized to one of three groups: (1) motivational social support (MSS) from a nurse, (2) MSS from a nurse plus significant other support (SOS), or (3) attention control. Aims are to: (1) test the effectiveness of 6 weeks of MSS and MSS with SOS on increasing mean minutes per day of moderate to vigorous PA; (2) determine the effects of change in moderate to vigorous PA on hopelessness; and (3) determine if perceived social support and motivation (exercise self-regulation) mediate the effects of the intervention on PA. A total of 69 participants have been enrolled to date. The protocol has been consistently and accurately used by research personnel. We address the protocol challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and steps taken to maintain fidelity to the intervention. Findings from this study could transform care for IHD patients who report hopelessness by promoting self-management of important PA goals that can contribute to better health outcomes.

BackgroundInvestigators conducting studies that include potentially suicidal individuals are obligated to develop a suicide risk management (SRM) protocol. There is little available in the literature to guide researchers in SRM protocol development.ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to describe an SRM protocol developed for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) currently enrolling cardiac patients who report moderate to severe levels of hopelessness.MethodsThe SRM protocol identifies suicidal ideation and measures ideation severity through use of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale risk factor questions. Based on responses, study participants are deemed safe or at low, moderate, or high risk for suicide. The SRM protocol guides research staff through a plan of action based on risk level. The protocol further guides staff through a plan over the course of this prospective study-from hospital enrollment to home-based visits.ResultsResearch staff are well trained to identify suicidal ideation risk factors, initiate specific questioning about suicidal intent, determine level of risk, identify protective factors and a safe environment, and make referrals if needed. Of the 51 patients hospitalized with cardiac disease who reported moderate to severe hopelessness, 43 scored at a safe suicide risk level and 8 scored at low risk. Thirty-five of the 51 patients enrolled in the RCT. Of the 35 participants who received home visits to date, there have been three instances of low and one instance of moderate suicide risk. The SRM protocol has been consistently and accurately used by research personnel in both hospital and home settings. One modification has been made to the protocol since study activation, namely, the addition of an assessment of counseling history and encouragement of continued counseling. Booster training sessions of research staff will continue throughout the course of the RCT.DiscussionUse of the SRM protocol identifies study participants who are safe or at risk for suicide in both hospital and home settings, and research staff can refer participants accordingly.ConclusionThe SRM protocol developed for this RCT can serve as a model in the development of SRM protocols for future research in acute care, community, or home-based settings.

Genetic counseling students with minoritized identities have reported experiencing microaggressions throughout graduate training, including from fieldwork supervisors. However, the impacts of these fieldwork experiences have not been thoroughly investigated. As supervision is known to be integral to genetic counseling students' skill development and success, the purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the impact of microaggressions on student training, with a specific focus on the supervisory working alliance. To achieve this goal, we conducted 11 interviews with recent genetic counseling graduates (2019–2021) who reported experiencing at least one microaggression from a fieldwork supervisor during graduate school training. Purposive sampling was used to prioritize interviewees who identified as underrepresented in the field due to race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and/or disability status. All interviewees were initially recruited as part of a larger mixed‐methods study investigating the frequency and types of microaggressions genetic counseling students experience from fieldwork supervisors. Interview questions explored the time period before a microaggression event, during the event, and after. Qualitative thematic analysis resulted in four themes, three of which are presented in this paper: (1) Impact of microaggressions, (2) Barriers to reporting microaggressions, and (3) Experience reporting microaggressions. Microaggressions from supervisors were shown to impair the psychological well‐being of participants and hinder learning opportunities. These experiences led participants to question their choice of profession and avoid time in clinic, ultimately constraining the development of strong supervisory working alliances. Some participants did not report microaggressions due to fear of negative repercussions, and those who did described defensive responses which harmed students' relationships with program leadership. This study reveals opportunities for supervisors to improve student training conditions by centering students' feelings and experiences, increasing open and honest communication, and extending psychosocial tools to supervision. Additionally, graduate programs are encouraged to establish structured reporting protocols for students and evaluate current shortcomings in equity and inclusion initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While research has shown that genetic counseling students with minoritized racial or ethnic identities face microaggressions throughout graduate training, quantitative data regarding the frequency of these experiences have not been reported. The purpose of this mixed‐methods study was to investigate the frequency and types of microaggressions experienced by graduates of accredited genetic counseling programs in the United States during fieldwork rotations. A quantitative survey was administered to assess how frequently 14 different types of microaggressions occurred in interactions with supervisors. Survey responses were analyzed using situation‐based coding (the number of different types of microaggressions experienced) and frequency‐based coding (the sum of participants' weighted Likert answers). Select survey respondents with minoritized identities were interviewed to better contextualize and categorize microaggression experiences. Analysis of 87 survey responses revealed that participants with minoritized racial and ethnic identities experience significantly more types of microaggressions (t(61) = 2.77; p = 0.007) at a significantly higher frequency (t(55) = 2.67; p = 0.010) than their white counterparts. Participants who identified as part of the disability community were also found to experience significantly more types of microaggressions (t(10) = 3.25; p = 0.009) at a significantly higher frequency (t(9) = 2.32; p = 0.045) than those who did not. Qualitative analysis of 11 interviews revealed that microaggressions from supervisors included offensive and inappropriate comments, unequal treatment, cultural intolerance, and disparaging feedback. Overall, our data present evidence that students with minoritized racial and ethnic identities and students with disabilities are subjected to a variety of inequitable, exclusionary, and harmful interactions. As a result, we recommend that all supervisors receive training about recognizing and preventing microaggressions to ensure that students are provided with an equitable and inclusive training experience, regardless of identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]