Complex solutions for a complex problem: A meta-analysis of the efficacy of multiple-behavior interventions on change in outcomes related to HIV

Adoption and Discontinuance of Innovation Packages: A Longitudinal Study of Transitions in COVID-19 Mitigation

The past decades have seen growing interest and application of interventions targeting the change of multiple behaviors at once. We advance this work by using the diffusion of innovations theory (DOI) to consider constellations of behaviors as innovation packages: multiple innovations that are logically related, interdependent in their use or effects, and often promoted as a set (Rogers, 2003). In addition, we embraced DOI's focus on behavioral decisions as a continual process that can include adoption and discontinuance over time, especially as new innovations (e.g., COVID-19 vaccine) appear. To that end, we conducted a latent transition analysis of COVID-19 mitigation behaviors (N = 697; 97% received a COVID-19 vaccine) across three time points in the pandemic: initial outbreak; a secondary, record-breaking rise in cases; and after the CDC recommended that fully vaccinated adults could discontinue wearing masks. This analysis allowed us to identify latent classes based on shared behavioral patterns and transitions between classes over time. The results showed evidence of three possible packages: (a) a package of traditional, symptom-management behaviors (covering coughs and sneezes, staying home if ill, and seeking medical care), (b) a package of just-novel COVID-19 behaviors (wearing masks, keeping six feet apart, and avoiding mass gatherings), and (c) a package of all COVID-19 mitigation behaviors. Movement between classes exemplified adoption and discontinuance of different packages, as well as widespread discontinuance with the replacement innovation: COVID-19 vaccines. Additional analyses showed that increases in hope were associated with sustained and delayed adoption; decreases in social approval were associated with discontinuance. Future directions in theorizing around innovation packages are discussed.

Scalable Telehealth Cancer Care: integrated healthy lifestyle program to live well after cancer treatment

Northwestern University's Center for Scalable Telehealth Cancer Care (STELLAR) is 1 of 4 Cancer Moonshot Telehealth Research Centers of Excellence programs funded by the National Cancer Institute to establish an evidence base for telehealth in cancer care. STELLAR is grounded in the Institute of Medicine's vision that quality cancer care includes not only disease treatment but also promotion of long-term health and quality of life (QOL). Cigarette smoking, insufficient physical activity, and overweight and obesity often co-occur and are associated with poorer treatment response, heightened recurrence risk, decreased longevity, diminished QOL, and increased treatment cost for many cancers. These risk behaviors are prevalent in cancer survivors, but their treatment is not routinely integrated into oncology care. STELLAR aims to foster patients' long-term health and QOL by designing, implementing, and sustaining a novel telehealth treatment program for multiple risk behaviors to be integrated into standard cancer care. Telehealth delivery is evidence-based for health behavior change treatment and is well suited to overcome access and workflow barriers that can otherwise impede treatment receipt. This paper describes STELLAR's 2-arm randomized parallel group pragmatic clinical trial comparing telehealth-delivered, coach-facilitated multiple risk behavior treatment vs self-guided usual care for the outcomes of reach, effectiveness, and cost among 3000 cancer survivors who have completed curative intent treatment. This paper also discusses several challenges encountered by the STELLAR investigative team and the adaptations developed to move the research forward.

The impact of multiple-behavior HIV interventions as a function of regional disadvantages: An analysis of syndemics

OBJECTIVE

Disadvantaged populations, including inhabitants of developing countries as well as racial/ethnic and sexual minorities in the United States, are disproportionally burdened by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, delayed HIV diagnosis, and unfavorable HIV-treatment outcomes. HIV interventions targeting single behaviors (e.g., testing) in these populations have shown to be efficacious at producing behavioral and clinical change but have been unable to eliminate the social health disparities associated with syndemics (i.e., a set of connected risks, interacting synergistically, and contributing to excess burden of disease in a population).

METHOD

This meta-analysis of 331 reports (clusters; number of effect sizes [k] = 1,364) assessed whether multiple-behavior interventions that target clusters of syndemic risks are more efficacious for those in disadvantaged regions and social groups.

RESULTS

Across the board, multiple-behavior interventions were more efficacious than single-behavior ones as well as passive control groups among samples from countries with lower log gross domestic product (GDP), lower Human Development Index (HDI), and lower Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the United States, the efficacy of multiple-behavior interventions was similar across different levels of representation of racial/ethnic and sexual minorities. The analyses used robust variance estimation with small-sample corrections to assess the differential effects of multiple-behavior interventions and Egger Sandwich test with the multilevel meta-analysis approach to detect selection biases. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

COVID-19 Mitigation Among College Students: Social Influences, Behavioral Spillover, and Antibody Results

By fall 2020, students returning to U.S. university campuses were mandated to engage in COVID-19 mitigation behaviors, including masking, which was a relatively novel prevention behavior in the U.S. Masking became a target of university mandates and campaigns, and it became politicized. Critical questions are whether the influences of injunctive norms and response efficacy on one behavior (i.e. masking) spill over to other mitigation behaviors (e.g. hand-washing), and how patterns of mitigation behaviors are associated with clinical outcomes. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of college students who returned to campus (N = 837) to explore these questions, and conducted COVID-19 antibody testing on a subset of participants to identify correlations between behaviors and disease burden. The results showed that college students were more likely to intend to wear face masks as they experienced more positive injunctive norms, liberal political views, stronger response efficacy for masks, and less pessimism. Latent class analysis revealed four mitigation classes: Adherents who intended to wear face masks and engage in the other COVID-19 mitigation behaviors; Hygiene Stewards and Masked Symptom Managers who intended to wear masks but only some other behaviors, and Refusers who intended to engage in no mitigation behaviors. Importantly, the Hygiene Stewards and Refusers had the highest likelihood of positive antibodies; these two classes differed in their masking intentions, but shared very low likelihoods of physical distancing from others and avoiding crowds or mass gatherings. The implications for theories of normative influences on novel behaviors, spillover effects, and future messaging are discussed.