Abstract

COVID-19 Health Education Activities Conducted by a National Sample of CHES® and MCHES® in Response to the Global Pandemic

Beth Chaney, Ph.D., MCHES¹, Melissa Opp, MPH, MCHES², Michael Stellefson, Ph.D., MCHES¹, Don Chaney, Ph.D., MCHES¹ (1)The University of Alabama, (2)National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc.

APHA 2022 Annual Meeting and Expo

Certified Health Education Specialists (CHES®) and Master Certified Health Education Specialists (MCHES®) have assumed critical roles in the public health response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. NCHEC’s Board of Commissioners voted to allow CHES®/MCHES® to claim up to 15 Category I continuing education credits/hours via a COVID-19 claim form, specifically documenting the Areas of Responsibility (AOR), work settings, and COVID-19-related work activities in which CHES® and MCHES® have been engaged during the pandemic. The opportunity for CHES®/MCHES® to submit a claim form opened January 1, 2020 and closed on December 31, 2021. NCHEC partnered with researchers from The University of Alabama to further examine the form submissions. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an update, from the preliminary findings presented at last year’s APHA conference, on the final analysis of 3,879 (3,258 CHES®; 621 MCHES®) COVID-19 claim forms submitted to NCHEC. Specifically, the presentation will showcase the 1) type of work within the AOR for Health Education Specialists that CHES® and MCHES® conducted during the pandemic and 2) the work settings for CHES® and MCHES®. Aggregated results on the most documented AOR, work settings, and activities will be presented for CHES® and MCHES®. NCHEC’s claim form opportunity not only provided CHES®/MCHES® with a mechanism for obtaining Category 1 continuing education credits during a time when job roles for many shifted to addressing COVID-19 issues, but it also captured a snapshot of the roles and responsibilities of a national sample of certified health education specialists during the global pandemic.

Abstract

The influence of dispositional traits on trust in medical scientists

Michael Haupt, MA , Sahil Shah, Raphael Cuomo, MPH, PhD, Tim Mackey, PhD, MAS UC San Diego

APHA 2022 Annual Meeting and Expo

Background: Distrust in medical institutions can hinder the public health response to infectious disease outbreaks such as COVID-19 and present challenges for communicating evidence-based health guidelines. Prior studies have found that the presence of health-related misinformation can lead to hesitancy in vaccine uptake and coverage and may be partly driven by a lack of trust in medical scientists and institutions.

Objective/Purpose: This study examines how dispositional traits related to information assessment ability (e.g., conscientiousness), antisocial tendencies (e.g., narcissism), and bias factors (e.g., political orientation) are associated with trust in medical scientists.

Methods: 858 participants were recruited for an online survey using Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. Dispositional traits were measured using validated scales for conscientiousness, openness, cognitive reflective thinking (CRT), grandiose and covert narcissism, religiosity, political affiliation, and trust in medical scientists. We conducted multiple regression analysis to examine associations with trust in medical scientists.

Results: Those who had higher scores in CRT, conscientiousness, and openness to experience were more likely to trust medical scientists (P = 0.005). Those who were less likely to trust medical scientists had higher scores in grandiose and covert narcissism, and scored lower in both CRT and conscientiousness.

Conclusion: Study findings indicate that those scoring higher in information assessment traits are more likely to trust medical scientists while antisocial traits were negatively correlated. Results provide preliminary evidence showing the importance of dispositional traits when assessing the public’s trust in medical professionals who often act as trusted health communicators and information sources, particularly during health emergencies.

Abstract

COVID-19 vaccination: Applications of the TTM with consideration for myths and barriers

Allegra Sacco, BA, Mark Robbins, PhD, Andrea Paiva, PhD, Andrea Rusnock, PhD University of Rhode Island

APHA 2022 Annual Meeting and Expo

The present study applied the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) to better understand readiness, including decisional balance (DCBL; pros and cons) and self-efficacy (SE), as well as myths and barriers, for COVID-19 vaccination. Definitions for each Stage of Change (SOC) and measurement items for DCBL, SE, Myths, and Barriers scales were developed based on the extant literature. Data were collected using an online questionnaire and completed by 528 adults ages 18-75. The sample was randomly split into halves for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA/principal components analysis (PCA) and CFA) to test measurement models. A correlational matrix assessed correlations between constructs. Multivariate analyses examined relationships between SOC and each construct, and strongest predictors of SOC. 43% of participants were in Precontemplation, 12.5% in Contemplation, 6.8% in Preparation, and 37.7% in Action. For DCBL, EFA/PCA revealed three correlated factors (one pros, two cons) (n1 = 8, α = .97; n2 = 5, α = .93; n3 = 4, α = .84). For SE, two correlated factors were revealed (n1 = 12, α = .96; n2 = 3, α = .89). Single-factor solutions for Myths (n = 13, α = .94) and Barriers (n = 6, α = .82) were revealed. CFA confirmed the observed models. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) post-hoc results aligned with past theoretical predictions of relationships between SOC, pros, cons, SE, and predicted relationships with myths and barriers. This study produced reliable and valid measures of TTM constructs for COVID-19 vaccination readiness that can be used for future research.