This study assesses the collective community capacity of the National COVID-19 Resiliency Network (NCRN), a multisectoral network mitigating the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on minoritized populations.

From January to April 2022, we used two concurrent data collection methods: a Collective Community Capacity (C3) survey (n=65) and key informant interviews (KIIs) (n=26). The C3 assessed capacity for creation of a shared vision, engagement in community change, and distributive leadership. KIIs assessed perspectives on network formation and implementation. We used a convergent design and triangulation for interpretation.

NCRN has growing collective community capacity. The C3 survey found high capacity for establishing a shared mission and evidence of mutual commitment, trust, and accountability. About three-quarters of respondents strongly agreed that partners addressed social, economic, and cultural barriers related to COVID-19. Interviewees valued NCRN leaders’ openness, availability, and willingness to listen. Partners learned from one another, increased their health communication capacity, and supported sustainability. They sought greater opportunities to partner and support decision-making.

NCRN developed a collaborative network with a shared vision of improving health equity during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, while identifying areas for improvement in distributive leadership. Findings can support other organizations seeking to build collective community capacity to address equity in public health emergencies.

Despite several empirical studies that have emphasized the problematic and ineffective way in which health organizations ‘correct’ information which does not come from them, they have not yet found ways to properly address vaccine hesitancy.

(1) Examining the responses of groups with different attitudes/ behaviors regarding vaccination; (2) Examining the effect of the common methods of correcting information regarding the response of subgroups, while examining issues of reliability, satisfaction, and information seeking, as well as how health organization tools aid the decision-making process regarding vaccines.

A simulation study that included 150 parents of kindergarten children was carried out.

Significant difference was found among the various groups (with respect to vaccination behavior) regarding the extent of their trust in the Ministry of Health (χ2(3) = 46.33; P < 0.0001), the reliability of the Ministry of Health’s response (χ2(3) = 31.56; P < 0.0001), satisfaction with the Ministry of Health’s response (χ2(3) = 25.25; P < 0.0001), and the level of help they felt the Ministry of Health’s tools provided them regarding vaccine-related decision making (χ2(3) = 27.76; P < 0.0001).

It is important for health organizations to gain the public’s trust, especially that of pro-vaccination groups with hesitant attitudes, while addressing the public’s fears and concerns.

Research has shown that patients with somatoform disorders (SFD) have difficulty using medical reassurance (i.e. normal results from diagnostic testing) to revise concerns about being seriously ill. In this brief report, we investigated whether deficits in adequately interpreting the likelihood of a medical disease may contribute to this difficulty, and whether patients’ concerns are altered by different likelihood framings.

Patients with SFD (N = 60), patients with major depression (N = 32), and healthy volunteers (N = 37) were presented with varying likelihoods for the presence of a serious medical disease and were asked how concerned they are about it. The likelihood itself was varied, as was the format in which it was presented (i.e. negative framing focusing on the presence of a disease v. positive framing emphasizing its absence; use of natural frequencies v. percentages).

Patients with SFD reported significantly more concern than depressed patients and healthy people in response to low likelihoods (i.e. 1: 100 000 to 1:10), while the groups were similarly concerned for likelihoods ⩾1:5. Across samples, the same mathematical likelihood caused significantly different levels of concern depending on how it was framed, with the lowest degree of concern for a positive framing approach and higher concern for natural frequencies (e.g. 1:100) than for percentages (e.g. 1%).

The results suggest a specific deficit of patients with SFD in interpreting low likelihoods for the presence of a medical disease. Positive framing approaches and the use of percentages rather than natural frequencies can lower the degree of concern.

To assess gaps and barriers to effective health communication during epidemics, pandemics, and mass health emergencies.

A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Maryland, USA), SCOPUS (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), Cochrane (Cochrane, London, UK), and grey literature between 2000 to 2020.

16043 of 16535 identified citations were eliminated through title/ abstracts screening, 437 through full-text review and 55 articles were assessed qualitatively. Key barriers to effective health communication included misinformation, distrust, limited collaboration, and messaging inconsistency. Lack of information/ research was not the primary challenge. Major gaps were in mass and social media strategies, characteristics of messages, sociocultural contexts, digital communication, rapid response, providers’ attitude and perception, and information source characteristics. Health messaging should be adaptable to information outlets and tailored for the most vulnerable. Denigration of individuals with inaccurate beliefs increases misinformation and baseline knowledge differences and fears should be addressed without polarization. Involving frontline providers in health communication strategies is crucial.

Primary reason for misinformation is the failure of health sector to convincingly convey accurate information. With input from all stakeholders, especially trusted members of communities and providers, health communication should include reinvestment in methods, multidimensional and multidisciplinary approaches, consistent frameworks, improved social media usage, clear, simple, and targeted messaging, and addressing systematic disinformation and misinformation with intention.

Racism significantly contributes to inequitable care quality and outcomes for people of color with serious illness, their families, and their communities. Clinicians use serious illness communication (SIC) to foster trust, elicit patients’ needs and values, and deliver goal-concordant services. Current SIC tools do not actively guide users to incorporate patients’ experiences with racism into care.

1) To explicitly address racism during SIC in the context of the patient’s lived experience and 2) to provide race-conscious SIC recommendations for clinicians and researchers.

Applying the conceptual elements of Public Health Critical Race Praxis to SIC practice and research through reflection on inclusive SIC approaches and a composite case.

Patients’ historical and ongoing narratives of racism must be intentionally welcomed in physically and psychologically safe environments by leveraging empathic communication opportunities, forging antiracist palliative care practices, removing interpersonal barriers to promote transparent patient–clinician relationships, and strengthening organizational commitments to strategically dismantle racism. Race-conscious SIC communication strategies, skills, and examples of talking points are provided.

Race-conscious SIC practices may assist to acknowledge racial dynamics within the patient–clinician encounter. Furthermore, race-conscious SIC may help to mitigate implicit and explicit bias in clinical practices and the exclusionary research cultures that guide them.

Public responses to a future novel disease might be influenced by a subset of individuals who are either sensitized or desensitized to concern-generating processes through their lived experiences during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Such influences may be critical for shaping public health messaging during the next emerging threat.

This study explored the potential outcomes of the influence of lived experiences by using a dynamic multiplex network model to simulate a COVID-19 outbreak in a population of 2000 individuals, connected by means of disease and communication layers. Then a new disease was introduced, and a subset of individuals (50% or 100% of hospitalized during the COVID-19 outbreak) was assumed to be either sensitized or desensitized to concern-generating processes relative to the general population, which alters their adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (social distancing).

Altered perceptions and behaviors from lived experiences with COVID-19 did not necessarily result in a strong mitigating effect for the novel outbreak. When public disease response is already strong or sensitization is assumed to be a robust effect, then a sensitized subset may enhance public mitigation of an outbreak through social distancing.

In preparing for future outbreaks, assuming an experienced and disease-aware public may compromise effective design of effective public health messaging and mitigative action.

The objective was to investigate the serial mediating effects of perceived cognitive functioning, patient health communication, and treatment anxiety in the relationship between heart disease symptoms and overall generic health-related quality of life in children with heart disease from the patient perspective.

Heart Disease Symptoms, Cognitive Problems, Communication and Treatment Anxiety Scales from Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ (PedsQL™) Cardiac Module and PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales were completed by 278 children with CHD ages 8–18. A serial multiple mediator model analysis was conducted to test the sequential mediating effects of perceived cognitive functioning, patient health communication, and treatment anxiety as intervening variables in the relationship between the heart disease symptoms predictor variable and overall generic health-related quality of life.

Heart disease symptoms predictive effects on overall generic health-related quality of life were serially mediated in part by cognitive functioning, patient health communication, and treatment anxiety. In a predictive analytics model with age and gender demographic covariates, heart disease symptoms, perceived cognitive functioning, patient health communication, and treatment anxiety accounted for 67% of the variance in patient-reported overall generic health-related quality of life (p < 0.001), representing a large effect size.

Perceived cognitive functioning, patient health communication, and treatment anxiety explain in part the mechanism of heart disease symptoms predictive effects on overall generic health-related quality of life in paediatric heart disease. Identifying the mediators of heart disease symptoms on overall generic health-related quality of life from the patient perspective may inform targeted clinical interventions and future patient-centred clinical research to improve overall daily functioning.

Researchers and public health professionals need to better understand individual engagement in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mitigation behaviors to reduce the human and societal costs of the current pandemic and prepare for future respiratory pandemics. We suggest that developing measures of individual mitigation behaviors and testing them among high-risk individuals, including pregnant people, may help to reduce overall morbidity and mortality by quickly identifying targets for messaging around mitigation until sufficient vaccination uptake is reached.

We surveyed pregnant people in California over 2 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic to explore mitigation behaviors. We developed and validated a novel Viral Respiratory Illness Mitigation Scale (VRIMS).

Seven measures loaded onto a single factor with good psychometric properties. The overall sample scale average was high over both waves, indicating that most pregnant Californians engaged in most of the strategies most of the time. Older participants, minoritized participants, those living in more urban contexts, and those surveyed during a surge reported engaging in these strategies most frequently.

Clinicians and researchers should consider using reliable, validated measures like the VRIMS to identify individuals and communities that may benefit from additional education on reducing risk for COVID-19, future respiratory pandemics, or even seasonal flu.