RESUMEN
AIM: To explore patient and staff views about the mixing of COVID-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in multi-bed hospital rooms. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with paper surveys and structured interviews. Self-administered surveys were undertaken with inpatients on the general medicine, general surgery, orthopaedic and respiratory wards in Dunedin Public Hospital. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with ward staff including consultants, registrars, charge nurses, registered nurses and nurse managers. The study was undertaken in February 2022, at the start of the first New Zealand wave of the Omicron variant. RESULTS: Of 118 eligible patients, 63 agreed to participate. Sixty (95%) of these patients were vaccinated for COVID-19. Most patients (59%) thought that vaccinated and unvaccinated people should be accommodated in separate hospital rooms. Vaccinated patients felt more comfortable sharing a multi-bed room with others of the same COVID-19 vaccination status as themselves than with unvaccinated patients. Participants who thought that they were at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 were more likely to support separation of patients based on vaccination status. Fifteen ward staff were interviewed: most would prefer the hospital to separate patients by vaccination status but were aware this would present practical and ethical problems and thought that current arrangements were adequate. CONCLUSION: While most vaccinated patients and staff wanted patients to be separated according to their COVID-19 vaccination status, the current precautionary measures for COVID-19 were viewed by most staff members as adequate.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Nueva Zelanda/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Pacientes Internos , Hospitales PúblicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Researching access to health services, and ways to improve equity, frequently requires researchers to recruit people facing social disadvantage. Recruitment can be challenging, and there is limited high quality evidence to guide researchers. This paper describes experiences of recruiting 1068 participants facing social disadvantage for a randomised controlled trial of prescription charges, and provides evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of recruitment methods. METHODS: Those living in areas of higher social deprivation, taking medicines for diabetes, taking anti-psychotic medicines, or with COPD were eligible to participate in the study. Several strategies were trialled to meet recruitment targets. We initially attempted to recruit participants in person, and then switched to a phone-based system, eventually utilising a market research company to deal with incoming calls. We used a range of strategies to publicise the study, including pamphlets in pharmacies and medical centres, media (especially local newspapers) and social media. RESULTS: Enrolling people on the phone was cheaper on average than recruiting in person, but as we refined our approach over time, the cost of the latter dropped significantly. In person recruitment had many advantages, such as enhancing our understanding of potential participants' concerns. Forty-nine percent of our participants are Maori, which we attribute to having Maori researchers on the team, recruiting in areas of high Maori population, team members' existing links with Maori health providers, and engaging and working with Maori providers. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting people facing social disadvantage requires careful planning and flexible recruitment strategies. Support from organisations trusted by potential participants is essential. REGISTRATION: The Free Meds study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12618001486213 ).