Warning Crowdsourced Study Participants About Possible Consequences for Inattentive Participation Relates to Informed Consent, Regardless of Effects on Data Quality

Brühlmann and colleagues recently examined the effects of “warning statements” on insufficient effort responding (IER) in crowdsourced research, specifically Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Among other findings, it showed that passively reading a warning statement did not significantly reduce careless responding relative to a control condition. This brief essay discusses the context around IER on crowdsourced data collection platforms, finding Brühlmann’s contribution valuable. It then points out how crowdsourced studies by U.S. researchers using mechanisms like attention checks to control for IER plausibly should include warning statements regardless of their effect on IER due to federal research regulations around payment transparency

Misinformation about COVID-19: evidence for differential latent profiles and a strong association with trust in science

Background: The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been mirrored by diffusion of misinformation and conspiracy theories about its origins (such as 5G cellular networks) and the motivations of preventive measures like vaccination, social distancing, and face masks (for example, as a political ploy). These beliefs have resulted in substantive, negative real-world outcomes but remain largely unstudied. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, online survey (n=660). Participants were asked about the believability of five selected COVID-19 narratives, their political orientation, their religious commitment, and their trust in science (a 21-item scale), along with sociodemographic items. Data were assessed descriptively, then latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups with similar believability profiles. Bivariate (ANOVA) analyses were run, then multivariable, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with membership in specific COVID-19 narrative believability profiles. Results: For the full sample, believability of the narratives varied, from a low of 1.94 (SD=1.72) for the 5G narrative to a high of 5.56 (SD=1.64) for the zoonotic (scientific consensus) narrative. Four distinct belief profiles emerged, with the preponderance (70%) of the sample falling into Profile 1, which believed the scientifically accepted narrative (zoonotic origin) but not the misinformed or conspiratorial narratives. Other profiles did not disbelieve the zoonotic explanation, but rather believed additional misinformation to varying degrees. Controlling for sociodemographics, political orientation and religious commitment were marginally, and typically non-significantly, associated with COVID-19 belief profile membership. However, trust in science was a strong, significant predictor of profile membership, with lower trust being substantively associated with belonging to Profiles 2 through 4. Conclusions: Belief in misinformation or conspiratorial narratives may not be mutually exclusive from belief in the narrative reflecting scientific consensus; that is, profiles were distinguished not by belief in the zoonotic narrative, but rather by concomitant belief or disbelief in additional narratives. Additional, renewed dissemination of scientifically accepted narratives may not attenuate belief in misinformation. However, prophylaxis of COVID-19 misinformation might be achieved by taking concrete steps to improve trust in science and scientists, such as building understanding of the scientific process and supporting open science initiatives

HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis uptake by advanced practice nurses: Interplay of agency, community and attitudinal factors

Aims To identify associations among agency, community, personal and attitudinal factors that affect advanced practice nurses’ uptake of HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis, an intervention consists of emtricitabine/tenofovir once‐daily pill, along with sexual risk reduction education. Design Cross‐sectional. Methods During March‐May 2017, randomly selected Indiana advanced practice nurses were invited to complete an online survey, consisted of several validated self‐rating measures (N = 1,358; response = 32.3%). Final sample (N = 369) was predominantly White, non‐Hispanic, female advanced practice nurses in urban practices (mean age = 46). Conceptual model for structural equation model included 29 original/composite variables and five latent factors. Results Final model consisted of 11 variables and four factors: agency, community, HIV prevention practices (including screening) and motivation to adopt evidence‐based practices overall. Community had direct effects on HIV prevention practices (estimate = 0.28) and agency (estimate = 0.29). Agency had direct effects on HIV prevention practices (estimate = 0.74) and motivation to adopt evidence‐based practices (estimate = 0.24). Community had indirect effects, through agency, on the two remaining factors. Conclusion Barriers exist against pre‐exposure prophylaxis implementation, although practice guidelines are available. HIV prevention practices must be integrated across organizational structures, especially in high‐risk communities, whereas practice change is more effective when focused on changing providers’ attitudes towards intervention. When planning a pre‐exposure prophylaxis intervention, advancing inputs from healthcare professionals, organizational leadership and community members, is crucial to success. Impact In settings where advanced practice nurses are primary contact points for health care, they may be best positioned to have an impact on implementation of HIV risk reduction strategies. Further research is needed to optimize their contributions to pre‐exposure prophylaxis implementation

COVID-19 Misinformation Prophylaxis: Protocol for a Randomized Trial of a Brief Informational Intervention

Background: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect life in the United States, the important role of nonpharmaceutical preventive behaviors (such as wearing a face mask) in reducing the risk of infection has become clear. During the pandemic, researchers have observed the rapid proliferation of misinformed or inconsistent narratives about COVID-19. There is growing evidence that such misinformed narratives are associated with various forms of undesirable behavior (eg, burning down cell towers). Furthermore, individuals’ adherence to recommended COVID-19 preventive guidelines has been inconsistent, and such mandates have engendered opposition and controversy. Recent research suggests the possibility that trust in science and scientists may be an important thread to weave throughout these seemingly disparate components of the modern public health landscape. Thus, this paper describes the protocol for a randomized trial of a brief, digital intervention designed to increase trust in science. Objective: The objective of this study is to examine whether exposure to a curated infographic can increase trust in science, reduce the believability of misinformed narratives, and increase the likelihood to engage in preventive behaviors. Methods: This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, superiority trial comprising 2 parallel groups. A sample of 1000 adults aged ≥18 years who are representative of the population of the United States by gender, race and ethnicity, and age will be randomly assigned (via a 1:1 allocation) to an intervention or a placebo-control arm. The intervention will be a digital infographic with content based on principles of trust in science, developed by a health communications expert. The intervention will then be both pretested and pilot-tested to determine its viability. Study outcomes will include trust in science, a COVID-19 narrative belief latent profile membership, and the likelihood to engage in preventive behaviors, which will be controlled by 8 theoretically selected covariates. Results: This study was funded in August 2020, approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board on September 15, 2020, and prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusions: COVID-19 misinformation prophylaxis is crucial. This proposed experiment investigates the impact of a brief yet actionable intervention that can be easily disseminated to increase individuals’ trust in science, with the intention of affecting misinformation believability and, consequently, preventive behavioral intentions

Acceptability of buprenorphine as a treatment for opioid use disorders: Experiences of health providers in Indiana rural counties

Poster presentation at the 2020 American Public Health Association Virtual Annual Meeting and EXPO.This ongoing qualitative study uses medical (72.4%) and non-medical (27.6%) providers’ narratives to explore barriers and facilitators of buprenorphine – an approved Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT). Please note that the poster presentation represents preliminary findings which may change after data collection is completed

Working together to treat tobacco dependence among smokers with serious mental illness

The prevalence of tobacco use among persons with mental illness exceeds the prevalence in the general population by a factor of 2 to 4. Despite strong evidence that tobacco cessation counseling by a health professional can approximately double patients odds of quitting, clinicians across disciplines are reluctant to offer these individuals effective means by which to quit smoking. The purpose of this pilot study was to estimate the impact of an interprofessional tobacco education program on the perceived self-efficacy and self-rated counseling abilities of graduate health professions students to provide tobacco cessation counseling and their perceptions of interprofessional collaborative practice

Effects of ACT Out! Social Issue Theater on Social-Emotional Competence and Bullying in Youth and Adolescents: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Schools increasingly prioritize social-emotional competence and bullying and cyberbullying prevention, so the development of novel, low-cost, and high-yield programs addressing these topics is important. Further, rigorous assessment of interventions prior to widespread dissemination is crucial. Objective: This study assesses the effectiveness and implementation fidelity of the ACT Out! Social Issue Theater program, a 1-hour psychodramatic intervention by professional actors; it also measures students' receptiveness to the intervention. Methods: This study is a 2-arm cluster randomized control trial with 1:1 allocation that randomized either to the ACT Out! intervention or control (treatment as usual) at the classroom level (n=76 classrooms in 12 schools across 5 counties in Indiana, comprised of 1571 students at pretest in fourth, seventh, and tenth grades). The primary outcomes were self-reported social-emotional competence, bullying perpetration, and bullying victimization; the secondary outcomes were receptiveness to the intervention, implementation fidelity (independent observer observation), and prespecified subanalyses of social-emotional competence for seventh- and tenth-grade students. All outcomes were collected at baseline and 2-week posttest, with planned 3-months posttest data collection prevented due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Intervention fidelity was uniformly excellent (>96% adherence), and students were highly receptive to the program. However, trial results did not support the hypothesis that the intervention would increase participants' social-emotional competence. The intervention's impact on bullying was complicated to interpret and included some evidence of small interaction effects (reduced cyberbullying victimization and increased physical bullying perpetration). Additionally, pooled within-group reductions were also observed and discussed but were not appropriate for causal attribution. Conclusions: This study found no superiority for a 1-hour ACT Out! intervention compared to treatment as usual for social-emotional competence or offline bullying, but some evidence of a small effect for cyberbullying. On the basis of these results and the within-group effects, as a next step, we encourage research into whether the ACT Out! intervention may engender a bystander effect not amenable to randomization by classroom. Therefore, we recommend a larger trial of the ACT Out! intervention that focuses specifically on cyberbullying, measures bystander behavior, is randomized by school, and is controlled for extant bullying prevention efforts at each school.Funding for this study was provided by Lilly Endowment Inc, grant no. 2019 0543, to Claude McNeal Productions. Funding was provided to Prevention Insights via a subaward from that grant. Claude McNeal Productions and their representatives own the rights to the ACT Out! Social Issue Theater program. No one from that organization was involved in preparing the study protocol, interpreting findings, conducting analyses, or writing this manuscript, both as a matter of practice and per written agreement in the subaward to Prevention Insights

Using normative language when describing scientific findings: Study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial of effects on trust and credibility

This is an open preregistration of content provided as part of a study protocol (RR1)