Search

Objective The study objective was to prioritize topics for future patient‐centered research to increase uptake of common vaccines, such as for pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza, herpes zoster, human papillomavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, among adults living with autoimmune conditions. Methods A steering committee (SC) was formed that included clinicians, patients, patient advocates, and researchers associated with rheumatic diseases (psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis), inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple sclerosis. Through a scoping review and discussions, SC members identified research topics regarding vaccine uptake and/or hesitancy for prioritization. A larger multistakeholder alliance that included patients and patient advocates, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, regulators, and vaccine manufacturers conducted a modified Delphi exercise online with three rating rounds and one ranking round. Frequency analysis and comparisons across stakeholder groups were conducted. A weighted ranking score was generated for each item in the ranking round for final prioritization. Results Through the Delphi process, 33 research topics were identified, of which 13 topics were rated as critical by more than 70% of all stakeholders (n = 31). The two highest ranked critical topics per the full stakeholder group were “How well a vaccine works for adults with autoimmune conditions” and “How beliefs about vaccine safety affect vaccine uptake.” Conclusion A multistakeholder group identified key topics as critically important priorities for future research to decrease vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake of vaccines for adults with autoimmune conditions.

The impact of client variables on psychotherapy is of both theoretical and practical importance. Reactance--the premise that individuals seek to maintain control over personal freedoms when threatened by a perceived loss thereof--has been shown to have an impact on the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. Developing an effective means of quantitatively assessing this characteristic prior to treatment could facilitate treatment planning and maximize treatment outcome. The present study compared two paper-and-pencil measures of reactance: the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS) and Resistance Potential (RP). Ninety-eight men and women diagnosed with depression completed both measures. The TRS and RP failed to correlate despite their presumed ability to measure the same construct. The RP exhibited extremely poor internal consistency, calling into question results that have been based on this measure. The TRS results provided evidence of convergent, divergent, and construct validity for this instrument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]